PROPOSED Resource Management Plan and

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement for the

Lander Field Office Planning Area

February 2013

BLM

Wyoming Wind River Bighorn Basin District  Lander Field Office

Volume 2 of 2

Chapters 4 - 6,

Glossary, Appendices and Maps
The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the 

public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The 

Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, 

livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by conserving 

natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands.

BLM/WY/PL-13/007+1610

Volume 2 of 2
Proposed Resource Management Plan and

Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the

Lander Field Office Planning Area

Volume 2 of 2

Chapters 4 - 6, 

Glossary, Appendices and Maps

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Lander Field Office, Wyoming

February 2013
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS iii

February 2013 Table of Contents

Table of Contents

VOLUME 2 OF 2

4. Environmental Consequences.......................................................................................................... 589

4.1. Physical Resources.................................................................................................................... 593

4.1.1. Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 593

4.1.1.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 594

4.1.1.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 596

4.1.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 598

4.1.2. Geologic Resources..................................................................................................... 629

4.1.3. Soil .............................................................................................................................. 629

4.1.3.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 630

4.1.3.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 630

4.1.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 634

4.1.4. Water........................................................................................................................... 648

4.1.4.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 651

4.1.4.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 651

4.1.4.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 653

4.1.5. Cave and Karst Resources........................................................................................... 667

4.1.6. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics....................................................................... 668

4.1.6.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 668

4.1.6.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 668

4.1.6.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 669

4.2. Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................... 674

4.2.1. Locatable Minerals...................................................................................................... 674

4.2.1.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 674

4.2.1.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 677

4.2.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 679

4.2.2. Leasable Minerals – Coal............................................................................................ 690

4.2.3. Leasable Minerals – Geothermal................................................................................. 691

4.2.3.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 691

4.2.3.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 691

4.2.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 692

4.2.4. Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas ................................................................................ 693

4.2.4.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 694

4.2.4.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 695

4.2.4.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 697

4.2.5. Leasable Minerals – Oil Shale-Tar Sands................................................................... 718

4.2.6. Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals................................................... 718

4.2.6.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 718

4.2.6.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 719

4.2.6.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 721

4.2.7. Salable Minerals.......................................................................................................... 729

4.2.7.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 729

4.2.7.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 729

4.2.7.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 731
iv Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

4.3. Fire and Fuels Management...................................................................................................... 742

4.3.1. Unplanned/Wildfire..................................................................................................... 743

4.3.1.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 743

4.3.1.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 743

4.3.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 744

4.3.2. Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels Treatments................................................ 755

4.3.2.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 755

4.3.2.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 755

4.3.2.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 755

4.3.3. Stabilization and Rehabilitation .................................................................................. 765

4.4. Biological Resources ................................................................................................................ 766

4.4.1. Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen Communities...................................... 766

4.4.1.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 766

4.4.1.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 767

4.4.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 768

4.4.2. Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities................................................. 782

4.4.2.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 783

4.4.2.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 784

4.4.2.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 785

4.4.3. Invasive Species and Pest Management...................................................................... 800

4.4.3.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 801

4.4.3.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 801

4.4.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 802

4.4.4. Riparian-Wetland Resources....................................................................................... 819

4.4.4.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 819

4.4.4.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 819

4.4.4.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 821

4.4.5. Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish............................................................................. 836

4.4.5.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 836

4.4.5.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 836

4.4.5.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 837

4.4.6. Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife ...................................................................... 850

4.4.6.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 851

4.4.6.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 851

4.4.6.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 853

4.4.7. Special Status Species – Plants................................................................................... 901

4.4.7.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 902

4.4.7.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 902

4.4.7.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 903

4.4.8. Special Status Species – Fish ...................................................................................... 917

4.4.8.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 917

4.4.8.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 918

4.4.8.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 919

4.4.9. Special Status Species – Wildlife................................................................................ 922

4.4.9.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 923

4.4.9.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 923

4.4.9.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 924

4.4.10. Wild Horses................................................................................................................. 971

4.4.10.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 972

4.4.10.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 972

4.4.10.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 973
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS v

February 2013 Table of Contents

4.5. Heritage and Visual Resources................................................................................................. 992

4.5.1. Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 992

4.5.1.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 993

4.5.1.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................... 993

4.5.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives................................................................ 995

4.5.2. Paleontological Resources......................................................................................... 1006

4.5.2.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1007

4.5.2.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1007

4.5.2.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1007

4.5.3. Visual Resources....................................................................................................... 1014

4.5.3.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1014

4.5.3.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1017

4.5.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1018

4.6. Land Resources....................................................................................................................... 1023

4.6.1. Lands and Realty....................................................................................................... 1023

4.6.1.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1024

4.6.1.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1025

4.6.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1026

4.6.2. Renewable Energy .................................................................................................... 1026

4.6.2.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1027

4.6.2.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1027

4.6.2.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1029

4.6.3. Rights-of-Way and Corridors.................................................................................... 1038

4.6.3.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1038

4.6.3.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1038

4.6.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1039

4.6.4. Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management ....................................................... 1048

4.6.4.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1049

4.6.4.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1050

4.6.4.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1052

4.6.5. Livestock Grazing Management ............................................................................... 1061

4.6.5.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1061

4.6.5.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1062

4.6.5.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1063

4.6.6. Recreation ................................................................................................................. 1087

4.6.6.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1088

4.6.6.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1090

4.6.6.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1091

4.7. Special Designations............................................................................................................... 1103

4.7.1. Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural and Historic Resources..................... 1103

4.7.1.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1104

4.7.1.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1105

4.7.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1106

4.7.2. Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and Visual Resources................... 1116

4.7.2.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1116

4.7.2.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1118

4.7.2.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1118

4.7.3. Wilderness Study Areas............................................................................................ 1123

4.7.3.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1123

4.7.3.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1123

4.7.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1123
vi Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

4.7.4. Wild and Scenic Rivers............................................................................................. 1126

4.7.4.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1126

4.7.4.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1127

4.7.4.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1128

4.7.5. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern................................................................. 1134

4.7.5.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1134

4.7.5.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1135

4.7.5.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1135

4.8. Socioeconomic Resources....................................................................................................... 1240

4.8.1. Social Conditions...................................................................................................... 1240

4.8.1.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1241

4.8.1.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1242

4.8.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1242

4.8.2. Economic Conditions................................................................................................ 1251

4.8.2.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1253

4.8.2.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1255

4.8.2.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1256

4.8.3. Health and Safety ...................................................................................................... 1263

4.8.3.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1263

4.8.3.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1263

4.8.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1264

4.8.4. Environmental Justice ............................................................................................... 1266

4.8.4.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................. 1266

4.8.4.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1266

4.8.4.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................. 1267

4.8.5. Tribal Treaty Rights.................................................................................................. 1267

4.9. Climate Change....................................................................................................................... 1267

4.9.1. Summary of Impacts................................................................................................. 1267

4.9.2. Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................ 1268

4.9.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives ............................................................................. 1271

4.9.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives........................................................ 1271

4.9.3.2. Alternative A.............................................................................................. 1272

4.9.3.3. Alternative B.............................................................................................. 1273

4.9.3.4. Alternative C.............................................................................................. 1274

4.9.3.5. Alternative D.............................................................................................. 1275

4.10. Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................ 1276

4.10.1. Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from Management Actions................ 1282

4.10.2. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality with regard to Public Health and Welfare from 

Management Actions ................................................................................................ 1295

4.10.3. Cumulative Impacts to Water from Management Actions........................................ 1299

4.10.4. Cumulative Impacts to Riparian-Wetland Areas from Management Actions........... 1307

4.10.5. Cumulative Impacts to Vegetative Communities from Surface-Disturbing

Activities and Other Management Actions............................................................... 1313

4.10.6. Cumulative Impacts to the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail from

Development Activities............................................................................................. 1318

4.10.7. Cumulative Impacts to National Historic Trails from Development Activities........ 1322

4.11. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources....................................................... 1332

4.12. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts................................................................................................ 1333
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS vii

February 2013 Table of Contents

5. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination ................................................................. 1335

5.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1337

5.2. Public Involvement ................................................................................................................. 1338

5.2.1. Scoping Period .......................................................................................................... 1339

5.2.2. Public Comment Period on the Draft RMP and EIS................................................. 1339

5.2.3. Other Public Involvement ......................................................................................... 1340

5.2.4. Future Public Involvement........................................................................................ 1341

5.3. Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................................... 1341

5.3.1. Cooperating Agencies............................................................................................... 1342

5.3.2. Section 7 Consultation .............................................................................................. 1343

5.3.3. Native American Interests......................................................................................... 1343

5.4. Distribution List...................................................................................................................... 1344

5.5. Consultation Letters................................................................................................................ 1349

5.6. List of Preparers...................................................................................................................... 1360

6. References........................................................................................................................................ 1363

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................. 1399

Appendix A. Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies, Guidance, and Other Applicable 

Mandates and Authority ............................................................................................ 1427

Appendix B. Maps............................................................................................................................. 1445

Appendix C. Recreation Management Area Forms....................................................................... 1453

Appendix D. Reclamation Objectives and Standards.................................................................... 1477

Appendix E. Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria, Avoidance Criteria, and 

Special Management for Designated Corridors....................................................... 1483

E.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1483

E.2. Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers .............................................................................. 1484

E.3. Standard Exception ............................................................................................................... 1484

E.4. Resource Specific Exceptions............................................................................................... 1485

E.4.1. Wildlife ..................................................................................................................... 1485

E.4.2. Cultural Resources.................................................................................................... 1486

E.4.3. Oil and Gas Actions.................................................................................................. 1486

E.5. Procedures for Exceptions .................................................................................................... 1487

E.6. Rights-of-Way....................................................................................................................... 1488

Appendix F. Lander Air Resources Management Plan................................................................. 1491

F.1. Purpose.................................................................................................................................. 1491

F.2. Air Quality Issues ................................................................................................................. 1491

F.2.1. Magnitude of Emissions............................................................................................ 1491

F.2.2. Pollutants of Concern................................................................................................ 1492

F.2.3. Air Emission Generating Activities.......................................................................... 1493
viii Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

F.2.4. Geographic Areas of High Potential for Development............................................. 1493

F.2.5. Summary of Air Quality Issues................................................................................. 1495

F.3. Field Office Air Resource Management Requirements........................................................ 1496

F.3.1. Authorization of Air Emission Generating Activities............................................... 1496

F.3.2. Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 1497

F.3.3. Modeling................................................................................................................... 1497

F.3.4. Mitigation.................................................................................................................. 1498

F.4. Project Specific Requirements.............................................................................................. 1498

F.4.1. Emissions Inventory.................................................................................................. 1499

F.4.2. Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 1499

F.4.3. Modeling................................................................................................................... 1499

F.4.4. Mitigation.................................................................................................................. 1500

Appendix G. Example Detailed, Multi-phased, Reclamation Plan ............................................... 1505

Appendix H. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices................................... 1521

Appendix I. Stipulations and Conditions of Approval in Designated Development Areas 

and in Non-Designated Development Areas............................................................. 1535

Appendix J. Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.......................................................... 1537

Appendix K. Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range Improvements....................................... 1547

Appendix L. Economic Impact Analysis Methodology.................................................................. 1583

L.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1583

L.2. The IMPLAN Model............................................................................................................. 1583

L.3. Oil and Gas ........................................................................................................................... 1584

L.4. Livestock Grazing................................................................................................................. 1589

L.5. Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 1592

Appendix M. Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and 

Disruptive Activities.................................................................................................... 1595

Appendix N. Standard Oil and Gas Stipulations............................................................................ 1601

Appendix O. Fire Management........................................................................................................ 1605

Appendix P. Species Mentioned in the Lander Field Office Resource Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement...................................................................... 1611

Appendix Q. Fire Regime and Vegetation Condition..................................................................... 1617

Appendix R. Lands Identified for Land Tenure Adjustment(s) ................................................... 1623

Appendix S. Lands Identified for Disposal..................................................................................... 1629

Appendix T. Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions..................................... 1641
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS ix

February 2013 Table of Contents

Appendix U. Technical Support Document for Air Resources ..................................................... 1651

U.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1651

U.1.1. Study Area ................................................................................................................ 1651

U.1.2. Pollutants Addressed in the Analysis........................................................................ 1651

U.1.3. Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................ 1652

U.1.4. Emissions Generating Activities Included in Analysis............................................. 1655

U.2. Methodology......................................................................................................................... 1657

U.2.1. Emission Calculations by Category .......................................................................... 1658

U.3. Mitigation and BMPs............................................................................................................ 1662

U.4. Summary of Emissions......................................................................................................... 1665

Appendix V. Wild Horse Management in the Lander Planning Area.......................................... 1805

Appendix W. Travel Management Planning.................................................................................... 1813

Appendix X. Comment Analysis...................................................................................................... 1829

X.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1829

X.2. Comment Analysis Process................................................................................................... 1830

X.2.1. Analysis Process ....................................................................................................... 1830

X.3. Commenter Demographics ................................................................................................... 1831

X.3.1. Geographic Representation....................................................................................... 1832

X.3.2. Organizational Affiliation......................................................................................... 1834

X.3.3. Public Comment Document Method of Delivery ..................................................... 1835

X.3.4. Form Letters.............................................................................................................. 1835

X.4. Analysis of Comments.......................................................................................................... 1836

X.4.1. Comment Submittals by Issue Category................................................................... 1837

X.4.2. Substantive Comment Summary and Response........................................................ 1840

X.4.3. Non-Substantive Comments ..................................................................................... 1870

X.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 1870
x Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

List of Figures

Figure 4.1. Estimated Annual Emissions by Alternative from BLM Activities in the Lander Planning 

Area, 2018 .................................................................................................................................595

Figure 4.2. Estimated Annual Emissions by Alternative from BLM Activities in the Lander Planning 

Area, 2027 .................................................................................................................................596

Figure 4.3. Contribution of Each Category to Total PM10 Emissions under Alternative A, 2018............608

Figure 4.4. Contribution of Each Category to Total NOx Emissions under Alternative A, 2018 .............609

Figure 4.5. Contribution of Each Category to Total VOCs Emissions under Alternative A, 2018 ..........610

Figure 4.6. Contribution of Each Category to Total HAPs Emissions under Alternative A, 2018...........611

Figure 4.7. Contribution of Each Category to Total CO Emissions under Alternative B, 2018 ...............616

Figure 4.8. Contribution of Each Category to Total SO2 Emissions under Alternative B, 2018 ..............617

Figure 4.9. Contribution of Each Category to Total PM10 Emissions under Alternative C, 2018 ............622

Figure 4.10. Contribution of Each Category to Total PM2.5 Emissions under Alternative C, 2018............623

Figure 4.11. Contribution of Oil and Gas Development Emissions to Total Emissions by Alternative, 

2018 ...........................................................................................................................................628

Figure 4.12. Contribution of Non-Oil and Gas Mineral Development Emissions to Total Emissions by 

Alternative, 2018.......................................................................................................................629

Figure 4.13. Fremont County Subdivisions, 1985-2010.............................................................................1303

Figure 4.14. Acres under Subdivision Development in Fremont County, 1985-2010 ..............................1304

Figure K.1. Range Infrastructure Development.........................................................................................1582

Figure X.1. Number of Comment Documents by Geography ..................................................................1834

Figure X.2. Number of Comment Documents by Affiliation ...................................................................1835

Figure X.3. Number of Individual Comments by Issue Category.............................................................1839
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xi

February 2013 Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 4.1. Estimated Annual Emissions Summary for BLM Activities in the Lander Planning Area....594

Table 4.2. Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year) Summary for BLM 

Activities in the Lander Planning Area ....................................................................................599

Table 4.3. Lander Planning Area GHG Emissions as Percentage of Wyoming Statewide GHG 

Emissions...................................................................................................................................600

Table 4.4. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity – Base Year 2008...................................................603

Table 4.5. Estimated Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative A, 2018 .........................605

Table 4.6. Estimated Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative A, 2027 .........................606

Table 4.7. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative B, 2018 ............612

Table 4.8. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative B, 2027 ............614

Table 4.9. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative C, 2018 ............618

Table 4.10. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative C, 2027 ............620

Table 4.11. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative D, 2018 ............624

Table 4.12. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative D, 2027 ............626

Table 4.13. Acres of the Planning Area Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics .........................668

Table 4.14. Acres of Subsurface Mineral Estate Closed to Locatable Minerals (Segregation and 

Withdrawals).............................................................................................................................676

Table 4.15. Acreage of Withdrawals for the Benefit of Habitat, Cultural or Recreational Values............681

Table 4.16. Areas and Acreage Closed to Motorized Travel......................................................................681

Table 4.17. Acres of Mineral Estate Open, Open with Constraints, and Closed to Geothermal Leasing .692

Table 4.18. Total Acres of Federal Mineral Estate Open, Open with Constraints, and Closed to Oil 

and Gas Leasing by Alternative................................................................................................699

Table 4.19. Phosphate Potential...................................................................................................................719

Table 4.20. Visual Resources Inventory and Management Classes by Alternative .................................1016

Table 4.21. VRM Class Designation of Sensitive and Unique Scenic Features in the Lander Planning 

Area by Alternative.................................................................................................................1017

Table 4.22. Acreage of Withdrawals in the Lander Planning Area ..........................................................1025

Table 4.23. Wind Power Classification .....................................................................................................1028

Table 4.24. Travel Designations by Alternative........................................................................................1049

Table 4.25. Areas Closed to Motorized Vehicles by Alternative..............................................................1050

Table 4.26. Acres Designated for Over-Snow Travel ...............................................................................1050

Table 4.27. Acres Designated for Mechanized (Bicycle) Travel..............................................................1050

Table 4.28. Travel Management Focus under Alternative A....................................................................1053

Table 4.29. Travel Management Focus under Alternative B....................................................................1056

Table 4.30. Travel Management Focus under Alternative C....................................................................1058

Table 4.31. Estimated Reduction in AUMs by Alternative ......................................................................1068

Table 4.32. Impacts to Recreation Setting by Alternative.........................................................................1088

Table 4.33. Acreage Available to Consumptive, Non-Consumptive, Motorized, and Nonmotorized 

Recreation Activities...............................................................................................................1089

Table 4.34. Recreation-Specific Beneficial Outcomes by Alternative .....................................................1089

Table 4.35. Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Acreage by Alternative.......................................................1090

Table 4.36. Energy-Related Impacts to Recreation Areas under Alternative A.......................................1094
xii Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

Table 4.37. Energy-Related Impacts to Recreation Areas under Alternative C.......................................1099

Table 4.38. Energy-Related Impacts to Recreation Areas under Alternative D.......................................1103

Table 4.39. Congressionally Designated Trail Recreation Areas Managed for Beneficial Outcomes....1117

Table 4.40. VRM Classes as Percent of Congressionally Designated Trails Landscape.........................1117

Table 4.41. Waterways Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System...............1127

Table 4.42. Impacts to Eligible WSRs under Alternative A from Resource Uses...................................1130

Table 4.43. Impacts to Eligible WSRs from Other Special Designation Management............................1131

Table 4.44. Impacts to Eligible WSRs under Alternative C .....................................................................1133

Table 4.45. Overall Impacts to Social Conditions by Alternative ............................................................1241

Table 4.46. Comparison of Projected Earnings and Employment............................................................1254

Table 4.47. Average Annual Impacts on Earnings and Output, by Sector and Alternative for the 

Planning Area..........................................................................................................................1258

Table 4.48. Average Annual Impacts on Employment, by Sector and Alternative for the Planning 

Area .........................................................................................................................................1258

Table 4.49. Estimated Oil and Gas Tax Revenues by Alternative for the Planning Area........................1259

Table 4.50. Cumulative Surface Disturbance from BLM and Non-BLM Reasonable Foreseeable 

Actions.....................................................................................................................................1278

Table 4.51. Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions...........................................................1280

Table 4.52. Percent Composition by Land Ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area and

Non-Core Area ........................................................................................................................1285

Table 4.53. BLM Contribution to Cumulative Annual Statewide Emissions ..........................................1296

Table 4.54. Cumulative Annual Emissions Summary for BLM and Non-BLM Activities in the 

Lander Planning Area .............................................................................................................1298

Table 4.55. Wyoming Basin CDNST Management Miles by BLM Field Office....................................1321

Table 4.56. Number of Miles of Wyoming Basin CDNST Projected to be Impacted by Human 

Intrusion and Resource Uses...................................................................................................1321

Table 4.57. High Potential Trail Segments in the General Assessment Area...........................................1324

Table 4.58. High Potential Trail Segments in the Specific Assessment Area ..........................................1328

Table 5.1. Public Involvement, Coordination, and Consultation Events................................................1337

Table 5.2. List of Preparers......................................................................................................................1360

Table A.1. Federal Laws and Statutes ......................................................................................................1427

Table A.2. Bureau of Land Management Regulations and Policies........................................................1432

Table A.3. Applicable Wyoming State Laws and Regulations................................................................1438

Table A.4. Memoranda and Agreements..................................................................................................1438

Table C.1. Lander Field Office Recreation and Visitor Services Objectives..........................................1453

Table C.2. Difference in Recreation Management Areas........................................................................1454

Table C.3. Existing Recreation Management (Alternative A).................................................................1454

Table C.4. Special Recreation Management Areas..................................................................................1455

Table C.5. Distinct Extensive Recreation Management Areas................................................................1456

Table C.6. Alkali Basin Recreation Management Zone ..........................................................................1457

Table C.7. Sweetwater Mining Recreation Management Zone...............................................................1458

Table C.8. Designated Trails Recreation Management Zone..................................................................1460

Table C.9. Dubois Mill Site Recreation Management Zone (Alternatives B and D) .............................1461

Table C.10. Dubois Mill Site Recreation Management Zone (Alternative C)..........................................1463

Table C.11. Johnny Behind the Rocks Recreation Management Zone .....................................................1465
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xiii

February 2013 Table of Contents

Table C.12. Sinks Canyon Recreation Management Zone ........................................................................1466

Table C.13. The Bus @ Baldwin Creek Recreation Management Zone...................................................1468

Table C.14. National Historic Trails Auto Tour Route Recreation Management Zone ...........................1469

Table C.15. Group Use Recreation Management Zone .............................................................................1471

Table C.16. Sweetwater Canyon Recreation Management Zone ..............................................................1472

Table C.17. Sweetwater Rocks Recreation Management Zone.................................................................1474

Table F.1. Class I and Class II Areas in the Vicinity of the Planning Area............................................1495

Table F.2. Emission Reduction Strategies for Oil and Gas Development..............................................1501

Table I.1. Activities for Oil and Gas and ROW Operations, and Short-Term Operation and 

Maintenance Activities Subject to COAs/Stipulations..........................................................1535

Table I.2. Maintenance and Operation Activities for Oil and Gas and ROW Operations Outside 

DDAs Subject to COAs/Stipulations......................................................................................1536

Table K.1. Grazing Allotments, Acres, Season of Use, and Animal Unit Months.................................1551

Table K.2. Allotment Categorization – Current and Proposed ................................................................1563

Table K.3. Lander Field Office Grazing Allotments Assessed for Meeting Standards..........................1569

Table K.4. Allotment Management Plans and Rangeland Management Agreements Developed .........1573

Table K.5. Summary of Range Improvements Lander Field Office, 1986-2009....................................1576

Table K.6. Animal Unit Months Authorized, 1989-2008 ........................................................................1581

Table L.1. Oil and Gas Well Numbers.....................................................................................................1584

Table L.2. Projected Oil and Gas Production (Federal Surface).............................................................1585

Table L.3. Projected Oil and Gas Production (Federal, State, and Fee Surface)....................................1586

Table L.4. Assumptions for Analysis of Economic Impacts for Oil and Gas Well Drilling and 

Completion According to Well Type .....................................................................................1587

Table L.5. Assumptions for Analysis of Economical Impacts on Output for Oil and Gas Production..1588

Table L.6. Assumptions for Employment Impact Analysis for Oil and Gas Well Drilling and 

Completion According to Well Type .....................................................................................1588

Table L.7. Assumptions for Employment Impacts Analysis for Oil and Gas Production......................1589

Table L.8. Estimated AUMs by Alternative ............................................................................................1591

Table L.9. Assumptions for Analysis of Impacts on Output for Livestock Grazing ..............................1592

Table L.10. Assumptions for Analysis of Employment Impacts for Livestock Grazing..........................1592

Table L.11. Estimated Nonresident Recreation Visitor Days....................................................................1593

Table L.12. Assumptions for Analysis of Impacts on Output for Recreation Activities..........................1594

Table L.13. Assumptions for Employment Impacts Analysis for Recreation Activities..........................1594

Table O.1. Fire Management by Fire Management Unit.........................................................................1606

Table P.1. Common and Scientific Names of Plant and Wildlife Species .............................................1611

Table Q.1. Fire Regime Groups and Descriptions ...................................................................................1617

Table Q.2. Fire Regime Condition Classifications...................................................................................1617

Table Q.3. Forest and Woodland Fire Regime Groups, Fire Regime Condition Classifications, and 

Vegetation Structure and Health in the Planning Area ..........................................................1618

Table Q.4. Grasslands and Shrubland Fire Regime Groups, Fire Regime Condition Classifications, 

and Vegetation Structure and Health in the Planning Area ...................................................1620

Table S.1. Lands Identified for Disposal..................................................................................................1630

Table T.1. Summary of Projected Acres of Surface Disturbance by Resource ......................................1642

Table T.2. Oil and Gas Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions........................................1649

Table U.1. National and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards.......................................................1652
xiv Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

Table U.2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Increments...............................................................1654

Table U.3. Number of Existing and Proposed Wells by Alternative.......................................................1658

Table U.4. Basis for Emissions Calculations for Land Resources Projects ............................................1661

Table U.5. Emission Reduction Strategies for Oil and Gas Development..............................................1662

Table U.6. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells

(Base Year – 2008)..................................................................................................................1666

Table U.7. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells 

(Alternative A – 2018)............................................................................................................1668

Table U.8. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells 

(Alternative A – 2027)............................................................................................................1670

Table U.9. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells 

(Alternative B – 2018) ............................................................................................................1672

Table U.10. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells 

(Alternative B – 2027) ............................................................................................................1674

Table U.11. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells 

(Alternative C – 2018) ............................................................................................................1676

Table U.12. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells 

(Alternative C – 2027) ............................................................................................................1678

Table U.13. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells 

(Alternative D – 2018)............................................................................................................1680

Table U.14. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells 

(Alternative D – 2027)............................................................................................................1682

Table U.15. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Base Year – 2008).................1684

Table U.16. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative A – 2018)............1686

Table U.17. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative A – 2027)............1688

Table U.18. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative B – 2018)............1690

Table U.19. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative B – 2027)............1691

Table U.20. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative C – 2018)............1693

Table U.21. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative C – 2027)............1694

Table U.22. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative D – 2018)............1696

Table U.23. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative D – 2027)............1697

Table U.24. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Base Year – 2008)................................................1699

Table U.25. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative A – 2018)...........................................1700

Table U.26. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative A – 2027)...........................................1701

Table U.27. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative B – 2018)...........................................1702

Table U.28. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative B – 2027)...........................................1703

Table U.29. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative C – 2018)...........................................1704

Table U.30. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative C – 2027)...........................................1705

Table U.31. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative D – 2018)...........................................1706

Table U.32. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative D – 2027)...........................................1707

Table U.33. Locatable Minerals – Gold Mining (Base Year – 2008)........................................................1708

Table U.34. Locatable Minerals – Gold Mining (All Alternatives – 2018) ..............................................1709

Table U.35. Locatable Minerals – Gold Mining (All Alternatives – 2027) ..............................................1710

Table U.36. Locatable Minerals – Uranium Mining (Base Year – 2008) .................................................1711

Table U.37. Locatable Minerals – Uranium Mining (All Alternatives – 2018)........................................1712
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xv

February 2013 Table of Contents

Table U.38. Locatable Minerals – Uranium Mining (All Alternatives – 2027)........................................1713

Table U.39. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Base Year – 2008) ........................................................1714

Table U.40. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative A – 2018)...................................................1715

Table U.41. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative A – 2027)...................................................1716

Table U.42. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative B – 2018) ...................................................1717

Table U.43. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative B – 2027) ...................................................1718

Table U.44. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative C – 2018) ...................................................1719

Table U.45. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative C – 2027) ...................................................1720

Table U.46. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative D – 2018)...................................................1721

Table U.47. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative D – 2027)...................................................1722

Table U.48. Fire Management and Ecology (Base Year – 2008)..............................................................1723

Table U.49. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative A – 2018).........................................................1724

Table U.50. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative A – 2027).........................................................1725

Table U.51. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative B – 2018).........................................................1726

Table U.52. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative B – 2027).........................................................1727

Table U.53. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative C – 2018).........................................................1728

Table U.54. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative C – 2027).........................................................1729

Table U.55. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative D – 2018).........................................................1730

Table U.56. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative D – 2027).........................................................1731

Table U.57. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Base Year – 2008)......................................................1732

Table U.58. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative A – 2018) ................................................1733

Table U.59. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative A – 2027) ................................................1734

Table U.60. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative B – 2018).................................................1735

Table U.61. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative B – 2027).................................................1736

Table U.62. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative C – 2018).................................................1737

Table U.63. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative C – 2027).................................................1738

Table U.64. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative D – 2018) ................................................1739

Table U.65. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative D – 2027) ................................................1740

Table U.66. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Base Year – 2008).......1741

Table U.67. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative A – 2018)..1742

Table U.68. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative A – 2027)..1743

Table U.69. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative B – 2018)..1744

Table U.70. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative B – 2027)..1745

Table U.71. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative C – 2018)..1746

Table U.72. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative C – 2027)..1747

Table U.73. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative D – 2018)..1748

Table U.74. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative D – 2027)..1749

Table U.75. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Base Year – 2008).....1750

Table U.76. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative A – 2018) 1751

Table U.77. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative A – 2027) 1752

Table U.78. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative B – 2018) 1753

Table U.79. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative B – 2027) 1754

Table U.80. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative C – 2018) 1755

Table U.81. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative C – 2027) 1756

Table U.82. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative D – 2018) 1757
xvi Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

Table U.83. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative D – 2027) 1758

Table U.84. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Base Year – 2008)....................................................1759

Table U.85. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative A – 2018)...............................................1760

Table U.86. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative A – 2027)...............................................1761

Table U.87. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative B – 2018)...............................................1762

Table U.88. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative B – 2027)...............................................1763

Table U.89. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative C – 2018)...............................................1764

Table U.90. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative C – 2027)...............................................1765

Table U.91. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative D – 2018)...............................................1766

Table U.92. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative D – 2027)...............................................1767

Table U.93. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total (BLM and NonBLM) Wells (Base Year – 2008)............................................................................................1768

Table U.94. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells

(Alternative A – 2018)............................................................................................................1770

Table U.95. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells

(Alternative A – 2027)............................................................................................................1772

Table U.96. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells

(Alternative B – 2018) ............................................................................................................1774

Table U.97. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells

(Alternative B – 2027) ............................................................................................................1776

Table U.98. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells

(Alternative C – 2018) ............................................................................................................1778

Table U.99. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells

(Alternative C – 2027) ............................................................................................................1780

Table U.100. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells

(Alternative D – 2018)............................................................................................................1782

Table U.101. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells

(Alternative D – 2027)............................................................................................................1784

Table U.102. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total (BLM and Non-BLM) Wells

(Base Year – 2008)..................................................................................................................1786

Table U.103. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative A – 2018) ...............1788

Table U.104. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative A – 2027) ...............1790

Table U.105. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative B – 2018)................1792

Table U.106. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative B – 2027)................1794

Table U.107. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative C – 2018)................1796

Table U.108. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative C – 2027)................1798

Table U.109. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative D – 2018) ...............1800

Table U.110. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative D – 2027) ...............1802

Table V.1. Wild Horse Regional Meta-populations Associated with the Planning Area .......................1809

Table W.1. Travel Management Plan, Priority Rank, Timeframes for Completion, and Interim and 

Final Travel Restrictions.........................................................................................................1815

Table X.1. Issue Categories.......................................................................................................................1831

Table X.2. Number of Commenters by Geographic Location.................................................................1832

Table X.3. Number of Comment Documents by Affiliation (excluding form letters)............................1834

Table X.4. Number of Public Comment Documents by Method of Delivery.........................................1835
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xvii

February 2013 Table of Contents

Table X.5. Number of Comments per Issue Category .............................................................................1837

Table X.6. Comment and Response Summaries......................................................................................1841
xviii Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

List of Maps

Map 1. Surface Ownership in the Planning Area ...............................................................................1445

Map 2. Federal Mineral Estate in the Planning Area..........................................................................1445

Map 3. Dubois Area and General Location Names............................................................................1445

Map 4. Physical Resources - Major River Basins ..............................................................................1445

Map 5. Physical Resources - Riparian Areas......................................................................................1445

Map 6. Physical Resources - Class I Waters.......................................................................................1445

Map 7. Physical Resources - Wind Erosion Potential........................................................................1445

Map 8. Physical Resources - Water Erosion Potential .......................................................................1445

Map 9. Physical Resources - Annual Precipitation.............................................................................1445

Map 10. Physical Resources - Surface Slope........................................................................................1445

Map 11. Physical Resources - Soils with Limited Reclamation Potential...........................................1445

Map 12. Physical Resources - Citizen Proposed Wilderness...............................................................1445

Map 13. Physical Resources - Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (Alternative B) ...1445

Map 14. Physical Resources - Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (Alternative D)...1445

Map 15. Mineral Resources - Uranium Mining Projects and Districts................................................1445

Map 16. Mineral Resources - Geothermal Development Potential .....................................................1446

Map 17. Mineral Resources - Conventional Oil and Gas Development Potential ..............................1446

Map 18. Mineral Resources - Salable - Mineral Materials Sand and Gravel Occurrence Potential...1446

Map 19. Mineral Resources - Phosphate Leasing Potential.................................................................1446

Map 20. Mineral Resources - Coalbed Natural Gas Development Potential.......................................1446

Map 21. Mineral Resources - Locatable Mineral Withdrawals (Alternative A) .................................1446

Map 22. Mineral Resources - Locatable Mineral Withdrawals (Alternative B)..................................1446

Map 23. Mineral Resources - Locatable Mineral Withdrawals (Alternative C)..................................1446

Map 24. Mineral Resources - Locatable Mineral Withdrawals (Alternative D) .................................1446

Map 25. Mineral Resources - Geothermal Energy Constraints (Alternative A)..................................1446

Map 26. Mineral Resources - Geothermal Energy Constraints (Alternative B)..................................1446

Map 27. Mineral Resources - Geothermal Energy Constraints (Alternative C)..................................1446

Map 28. Mineral Resources - Geothermal Energy Constraints (Alternative D)..................................1446

Map 29. Mineral Resources - Oil and Gas Constraints (Alternative A)..............................................1446

Map 30. Mineral Resources - Oil and Gas Constraints (Alternative B) ..............................................1446

Map 31. Mineral Resources - Oil and Gas Constraints (Alternative C) ..............................................1446

Map 32. Mineral Resources - Oil and Gas Constraints (Alternative D)..............................................1446

Map 33. Mineral Resources - Oil and Gas Fields and Leases..............................................................1446

Map 34. Mineral Resources - Salable - Mineral Materials Disposal (Alternative A).........................1446

Map 35. Mineral Resources - Salable - Mineral Materials Disposal (Alternative B) .........................1446

Map 36. Mineral Resources - Salable - Mineral Materials Disposal (Alternative C) .........................1447

Map 37. Mineral Resources - Salable - Mineral Materials Disposal (Alternative D).........................1447

Map 38. Mineral Resources - Phosphate Leasing (Alternative A).......................................................1447

Map 39. Mineral Resources - Phosphate Leasing (Alternative B).......................................................1447

Map 40. Mineral Resources - Phosphate Leasing (Alternative C).......................................................1447

Map 41. Mineral Resources - Phosphate Leasing (Alternative D).......................................................1447

Map 42. Fire Management - Fire Regime Condition Classifications ..................................................1447
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xix

February 2013 Table of Contents

Map 43. Fire Management - Fire Management Units..........................................................................1447

Map 44. Biological Resources - Precipitation Zones for U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural 

Resources Conservation Service Ecological Site Descriptions.............................................1447

Map 45. Biological Resources - Vegetation Communities and Major Land Resource Areas............1447

Map 46. Biological Resources - Invasive Plant Species.......................................................................1447

Map 47. Biological Resources - Primary Forest Resource Areas........................................................1447

Map 48. Biological Resources - Proper Functioning Condition Streams............................................1447

Map 49. Biological Resources - Fish-bearing Streams ........................................................................1447

Map 50. Biological Resources - Bighorn Sheep Crucial Winter Range and Parturition Areas..........1447

Map 51. Biological Resources - Elk Winter Ranges and Parturition Areas........................................1447

Map 52. Biological Resources - Moose Crucial Winter Range ...........................................................1447

Map 53. Biological Resources - Mule Deer Crucial Winter Range.....................................................1447

Map 54. Biological Resources - Pronghorn Crucial Winter Range .....................................................1447

Map 55. Biological Resources - Wyoming Game and Fish Department Bighorn Sheep Herd Units 1447

Map 56. Biological Resources - Wyoming Game and Fish Department Elk Herd Units...................1448

Map 57. Biological Resources - Wyoming Game and Fish Department Moose Herd Units..............1448

Map 58. Biological Resources - Wyoming Game and Fish Department Mule Deer Herd Units.......1448

Map 59. Biological Resources - Wyoming Game and Fish Department Pronghorn Herd Units........1448

Map 60. Biological Resources - Big Game Migration Routes and Barriers........................................1448

Map 61. Biological Resources - Wyoming Game and Fish Department White-tailed Deer Herd 

Units.........................................................................................................................................1448

Map 62. Biological Resources - Known Raptor Nests.........................................................................1448

Map 63. Biological Resources - Special Status Species Greater Sage-Grouse (Alternatives A 

and C) ......................................................................................................................................1448

Map 64. Biological Resources - Special Status Species Greater Sage-Grouse (Alternative B)..........1448

Map 65. Biological Resources - Special Status Species Greater Sage-Grouse (Alternative D) .........1448

Map 66. Biological Resources - Special Status Species Lynx Analysis Units....................................1448

Map 67. Biological Resources - Special Status Species Desert Yellowhead Critical Habitat............1448

Map 68. Biological Resources - Wild Horse Herd Management Areas..............................................1448

Map 69. Heritage and Visual Resources - Cultural Resources ............................................................1448

Map 70. Heritage and Visual Resources - Potential Fossil Yield Classifications...............................1448

Map 71. Heritage and Visual Resources - Visual Resource Inventory Distance Mapping Zones......1448

Map 72. Heritage and Visual Resources - Visual Resource Inventory Sensitivity .............................1448

Map 73. Heritage and Visual Resources - Visual Resource Inventory Scenic Quality.......................1448

Map 74. Heritage and Visual Resources - New (2009) Visual Resource Inventory Classes..............1448

Map 75. Heritage and Visual Resources - Existing (1985) Visual Resource Management Classes 

(Alternative A) ........................................................................................................................1449

Map 76. Heritage and Visual Resources - Visual Resource Management Classes (Alternative B) ...1449

Map 77. Heritage and Visual Resources - Visual Resource Management Classes (Alternative C) ...1449

Map 78. Heritage and Visual Resources - Visual Resource Management Classes (Alternative D)...1449

Map 79. Heritage and Visual Resources - Regional Historic Trails and Early Highway-Intact 

Portions (Alternatives A, C, and D)........................................................................................1449

Map 80. Heritage and Visual Resources - Regional Historic Trails and Early Highways 

(Alternative B).........................................................................................................................1449

Map 81. Land Resources - Transportation Features.............................................................................1449
xx Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

Map 82. Land Resources - Jeffrey City Area Transportation Features................................................1449

Map 83. Land Resources - Lander Area Transportation Features .......................................................1449

Map 84. Land Resources - Lysite Area Transportation Features.........................................................1449

Map 85. Land Resources - Dubois Area Transportation Features.......................................................1449

Map 86. Land Resources - 1987 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ...................................................1449

Map 87. Land Resources - Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 2009 Physical Setting........................1449

Map 88. Land Resources - Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 2009 Social Setting............................1449

Map 89. Land Resources - Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 2009 Operational Setting ..................1449

Map 90. Land Resources - Recreation Management Areas (Alternative A).......................................1449

Map 91. Land Resources - Recreation Management Areas (Alternative B) .......................................1449

Map 92. Land Resources - Recreation Management Areas and Recreation and Public Purpose Act 

Leases (Alternative C) ............................................................................................................1449

Map 93. Land Resources - Recreation Management Areas and Recreation and Public Purpose Act 

Leases (Alternative D)............................................................................................................1449

Map 94. Land Resources - Lands Identified for Disposal, Retention, or Acquisition (Alternatives 

A and D)..................................................................................................................................1450

Map 95. Land Resources - Lands Identified for Disposal, Retention, or Acquisition (Alternatives 

B and C)...................................................................................................................................1450

Map 96. Land Resources - Wind Energy Potential ..............................................................................1450

Map 97. Land Resources - Wind Energy Development Avoidance and Exclusion Areas 

(Alternative A) ........................................................................................................................1450

Map 98. Land Resources - Wind Energy Development Avoidance and Exclusion Areas 

(Alternative B).........................................................................................................................1450

Map 99. Land Resources - Wind Energy Development Avoidance and Exclusion Areas 

(Alternative C).........................................................................................................................1450

Map 100. Land Resources - Wind Energy Development Avoidance and Exclusion Areas 

(Alternative D) ........................................................................................................................1450

Map 101. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas (Alternative A)............1450

Map 102. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas (Alternative B)............1450

Map 103. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas (Alternative C)............1450

Map 104. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas (Alternative D)............1450

Map 105. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Designated Corridors and Communication Sites 

(Alternative A) ........................................................................................................................1450

Map 106. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Designated Corridors and Communication Sites 

(Alternative B).........................................................................................................................1450

Map 107. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Designated Corridors and Communication Sites 

(Alternative C).........................................................................................................................1450

Map 108. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Designated Corridors and Communication Sites 

(Alternative D) ........................................................................................................................1450

Map 109. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management (Alternative A) .......................................1450

Map 110. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management (Alternative B)........................................1450

Map 111. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management (Alternative C)........................................1451

Map 112. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management (Alternative D) .......................................1451

Map 113. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management Seasonal Limitation to All Travel 

(Alternative D) ........................................................................................................................1451
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xxi

February 2013 Table of Contents

Map 114. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management Over-Snow Travel (Alternative A)........1451

Map 115. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management Over-Snow Travel (Alternative B)........1451

Map 116. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management Over-Snow Travel (Alternative D)........1451

Map 117. Land Resources - Livestock Grazing (Alternatives A and C) ...............................................1451

Map 118. Land Resources - Livestock Grazing (Alternative B)............................................................1451

Map 119. Land Resources - Livestock Grazing (Alternative D)............................................................1451

Map 120. Land Resources - Recreation Sites.........................................................................................1451

Map 121. Special Designations - Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.........................................1451

Map 122. Special Designations - National Historic Trails High Potential Segments ...........................1451

Map 123. Special Designations - National Historic Trails with Associated Sites.................................1451

Map 124. Special Designations - National Historic Trails (Alternative A)...........................................1451

Map 125 Special Designations - National Historic Trails (Alternative B) ...........................................1451

Map 126. Special Designations - National Historic Trails (Alternative C) ...........................................1451

Map 127. Special Designations - National Trails Management Corridor (Alternative D)....................1451

Map 128. Special Designations - Wilderness Study Areas....................................................................1451

Map 129. Special Designations - Suitable Wild and Scenic River Segments (Alternatives A, B, 

and D)......................................................................................................................................1452

Map 130. Special Designations - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (Alternative A) ..............1452

Map 131. Special Designations - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (Alternative B)...............1452

Map 132. Special Designations - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (Alternative D) ..............1452

Map 133. Socioeconomic Resources - Tribal Census Tracts in the Wind River Indian Reservation...1452

Map 134. Mineral Resources - Designated Development Area (Alternative D)...................................1452

Map 135. Mineral Resources - Areas with Master Leasing Plans (Alternative D) ...............................1452

Map 136. Cumulative Impact Analysis Area - Greater Sage-Grouse - Surface Ownership .................1452

Map 137. Cumulative Impact Analysis Area - Greater Sage-Grouse - Split Estate..............................1452

Map 138. Cumulative Impact Analysis Area - Fourth Order Hydrologic Units ...................................1452

Map 139. Cumulative Impact Analysis Area - Wyoming Basin Ecoregion and Continental Divide 

National Scenic Trail...............................................................................................................1452

Map 140. Cumulative Impact Analysis Area - National Historic Trails................................................1452

Map 141. Land Resources - Lands Proposed for Exchange by Members of the Public .......................1452

Map 142. Trails and Travel Management - Travel Management Areas................................................1452
xxii Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

This page intentionally

left blank
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 591

Introduction

The following analyses addresses impacts from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) management

of federal surface and federal minerals. In some locations, there are private or State of Wyoming

lands near or intermingled with public lands and/or federal mineral estate. The BLM land use plan

only covers federal lands and mineral estate and federal actions. There depiction of geographic

areas which might include lands with other ownerships does not suggest or imply that federal

management applies to those properties.

General Assumptions for Analysis

The methods and assumptions listed below, and for each resource in Chapter 4, are disclosed to

provide a basis for the conclusions reached in environmental assessments. Assumptions common

to all alternatives and all resources are listed below, whereas assumptions unique to specific

resources and resource uses are listed under Methods and Assumptions in the appropriate resource

section.

● All alternatives are implemented in compliance with standard practices, best management

practices (BMPs) (Appendix H (p. 1521)), design features, guidelines for surface-disturbing

activities, and mitigation guidelines (Appendix M (p. 1595)). In other words, the practices

and guidelines included in Appendix H (p. 1521) and Appendix M (p. 1595) are considered

a component of each alternative. Appendix M (p. 1595) lists standard practices used in the

planning area to mitigate adverse impacts caused by surface-disturbing activities.

● Comparison of impacts among resources is intended to provide an impartial assessment to

inform the decision maker and the public. The impact analysis does not imply or assign a

value or numerical ranking to impacts. Actions resulting in adverse impacts to one resource

may impart a beneficial impact to other resources.

● In general, adverse impacts described in this chapter are considered important if they result

from or relate to the key planning issues described in Chapter 1 and the context or intensity of

impacts suggest potential impacts to public health and safety; a potential for violating legal

standards, laws, or protective status of resources; or potential impacts to unique resources.

● The comparison of individual alternatives is qualitative, relative to Alternative A (current

management), and based on professional judgment and consideration of the context and

intensity of allowable uses and management actions anticipated to impact resources and

resource uses.

● Analysis of environmental consequences considers the extent of projected surface disturbance

and associated development resulting from BLM actions.

● The analysis of impacts reflects the anticipated impacts of alternatives on individual resources;

for example, the impact of invasive nonnative plant species on wildlife is described in

the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife section – not in the Invasive Species and Pest

Management section.

● The analysis of impacts focuses on the anticipated future incremental and meaningful impact

of management actions and allowable uses proposed for each alternative. The impact of past

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Introduction
592 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and present actions is encompassed within the description of existing conditions in Chapter

3, Affected Environment.

● The definition of surface-disturbing activities used for analysis is provided in the Glossary.

Surface disturbance typically is described in terms of the total acres of short- or long-term

disturbance from BLM actions. Short-term impacts are defined as those impacts that are

anticipated to begin and end within the first 5 years after the action is implemented. Long-term

impacts are defined as lasting beyond 5 years to the end of or beyond the 20-year planning

timeframe addressed in the Resource Management Plan (RMP). Appendix T (p. 1641) lists

projected surface disturbance associated with individual reasonable foreseeable actions.

● Although not defined as a surface-disturbing activity, livestock and native ungulate grazing

and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use may remove vegetation and expose the soil surface

leading to increased erosion if use is unmanaged or heavy.

● The decision to designate a right-of-way (ROW) corridor for major ROWs is not, in and of

itself, a surface-disturbing activity. Under all alternatives, ROWs would be co-located with

existing disturbance if at all possible. However, each new disturbance in a location expands

the geographic area where the adverse impacts associated with surface disturbance would

occur. In the case of aboveground ROWs, minimum separation requirements can expand the

impacts of additional lines to new areas that had not been impacted by the original line.

While the types of adverse impacts associated with the additional lines are described in the

impacted resources, those impacts would occur (and would be analyzed in detail) only if a

new application were authorized.

● Surface disturbances generally increase surface runoff due to an increase in impervious

surface, changes in water routing, and loss of vegetation. Surface disturbances also can

decrease recharge to aquifers by increases in impervious surface due to compaction, or by

transporting water away from areas which have the capability to infiltrate.

● It is assumed that the greater the amount of surface disturbance in a watershed, the greater

the probability that accelerated sedimentation associated with the excess surface runoff and

will result.

● The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix J (p. 1537)) set forth standards

that apply to all activities.

● Planning decisions pursuant to the RMP also apply to BLM-administered federal minerals

that underlie non-federal lands (split-estate).

● There are no RMP decisions made for non-federal land surface or mineral estate, on federal

lands administered by other federal agencies, or on the federal mineral estate underlying

federal lands administered by other federal agencies.

● Planning and management direction focuses on the relative values of resources and not

exclusively on the greatest economic return or economic output.

● Reasonably foreseeable action or activity scenarios for all land and resource uses have been

developed and portrayed based on historical, existing, and projected levels for all programs.

These reasonably foreseeable actions or activity scenarios are estimates for analysis; they are

not considered as ceilings or limits, but for comparison of impacts. The 20-year planning

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

General Assumptions for Analysis February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 593

timeframe is also not a predictor of the length of time the RMP will be in effect; it could be

less or more, and could be amended at any time.

● Existing endangered species recovery plans, including plans for reintroduction of endangered

species and other species, have been considered. Consultation, coordination, and cooperation

with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has occurred in accordance

with the 2000 BLM/USFWS Interagency Memorandum of Agreement regarding Section 7

Consultation (USFWS and BLM 2000). All existing biological assessments and biological

opinions regarding areas within the planning area have been reviewed for applicability.

● Mitigation requirements exist that prevent or limit direct impacts associated with land use

activities or that reclaim the land after the activity has been completed.

● Projections of the level of activity for land uses are based on historical trends, existing land

use agreements such as leases or permits, and statements of interest in land use by individuals

and industry organizations.

● Funding will be available to implement the alternatives described in Chapter 2.

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

impact analyses considered decisions made for resources managed by other entities or

individuals.

● The alternatives will be implemented as described in Chapter 2. Each decision in the

alternatives is predicated on the entire alternative being implemented. In other words, each

management action was developed assuming all other management actions in the respective

alternative would be implemented. Had different alternatives been analyzed, a different suite

of management actions and resource protections or uses might have been appropriate.

● 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.

● It is commonly accepted that fire suppression costs and risk to life and property should be less

when wildland fires occur where hazardous fuels have been treated, compared to areas where

fuels have not been treated. For example, fires generally burn hotter and flame lengths are

higher in untreated areas.

4.1. Physical Resources

4.1.1. Air Quality

Air resources in the planning area were evaluated to determine how future BLM actions could

impact air quality. Actions that initiate or increase emissions of air pollutants can adversely impact

air resources, including increased concentrations of air pollutants, decreased visibility, increased

atmospheric deposition on soils and vegetation, and acidification of sensitive waterbodies.

Actions that reduce or control emissions of air pollutants can be very effective at improving air

quality and preventing air quality degradation. This section addresses the potential impacts of

air pollutant emissions from specific activities authorized, allowed, or performed by the BLM

in the planning area under each alternative.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Physical Resources
594 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.1.1.1. Summary of Impacts

Emissions of air pollutants were estimated for several management actions and activities likely to

occur under each alternative. Emissions were estimated for five criteria pollutants, volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). A baseline

year of 2008 was used to estimate actual emissions and two future years, a short-term year (2018)

and a long-term year (2027), were used as the basis to project future emissions. Emissions of

all analyzed pollutants are estimated to increase over baseline levels in the short term with a

decreasing trend in emissions from the short term to the long term. Emissions increases are due in

part to the projected increase in oil and gas development, mining, and other mineral development.

In general, Alternative B emissions estimates would result in the least increase in total air

pollutant emissions. Lower emissions would be expected under this alternative because it is

the alternative with the greatest restrictions on mineral development. Although total emissions

increases are estimated to be the lowest under this alternative, carbon monoxide (CO) emissions

could be highest under Alternative B and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions could be the third highest

under Alternative B. This is due primarily to the larger acreage of prescribed burning projected for

Alternative B. However, limitations on the use of prescribed burning in Core Area would limit this

increase. This alternative would likely result in the least adverse impacts to air quality. Alternative

C emissions estimates would result in the greatest increase in total air pollutant emissions.

Alternative C imposes the fewest restrictions on minerals development, which would result in

higher emissions than the other alternatives. Alternative C would have the highest potential to

result in adverse impacts to air quality. Total emissions estimated under Alternative D would

result in the next-to-lowest increase in emissions over baseline. Table 4.1, “Estimated Annual

Emissions Summary for BLM Activities in the Lander Planning Area” (p. 594) summarizes

the estimated annual emissions under each alternative by pollutant. This same information is

displayed graphically in Figure 4.1, “Estimated Annual Emissions by Alternative from BLM

Activities in the Lander Planning Area, 2018” (p. 595) and Figure 4.2, “Estimated Annual

Emissions by Alternative from BLM Activities in the Lander Planning Area, 2027” (p. 595).

Table 4.1. Estimated Annual Emissions Summary for BLM Activities in the Lander

Planning Area

Scenario PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Base Year – 2008

Base Year 761 135 678 11 1,138 1,726 270

Forecast Year – 2018

Alternative A 2,195 371 1,829 23 1,734 4,737 786

Alternative B 1,760 359 1,420 24 2,077 4,019 654

Alternative C 2,887 443 1,873 25 1,758 4,754 788

Alternative D 2,122 373 1,747 24 1,872 4,592 759

Forecast Year – 2027

Alternative A 2,047 344 1,528 22 1,583 3,722 616

Alternative B 1,621 335 1,173 23 1,953 3,145 509

Alternative C 2,737 416 1,546 24 1,596 3,734 617

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 595

Scenario PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Alternative D 1,976 347 1,458 23 1,727 3,606 594

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CO carbon monoxide

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CO carbon monoxide

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

Figure 4.1. Estimated Annual Emissions by Alternative from BLM Activities in the Lander

Planning Area, 2018

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
596 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CO carbon monoxide

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

Figure 4.2. Estimated Annual Emissions by Alternative from BLM Activities in the Lander

Planning Area, 2027

4.1.1.2. Methods and Assumptions

The air resources impact analysis used an emissions-comparison approach, which involved

the following steps:

● Identify management actions and activities of concern in the planning area that generate air

pollutant emissions.

● Compile current (2008) operational and production data for each identified

emission-generating activity.

● Compile projected future operational and production data for each identified

emission-generating activity for the selected future project years (2018 and 2027).

● Calculate estimated current and projected future emissions of specific air pollutants for

identified management actions and activities under each alternative.

● Analyze changes in estimated emissions over the baseline year and among alternatives.

The analysis focused on emissions associated with peak year construction activities and peak

year production and operations emissions approximately 10 and 20 years from the baseline year.

Year 2008 was chosen as the baseline year because this is the most recent year for which reliable

data are available for estimating actual emissions. Project years 2018 and 2027 were selected for

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 597

future-year scenarios because these years represent peak construction and operations years for

projected oil and gas development. Management actions associated with oil and gas development

represent the largest single sector of emissions for most of the air pollutants; therefore, peak

development years for this sector were considered most conservative for calculating air emissions.

Given uncertainties concerning the numbers, nature, and specific locations of future emissions

sources and activities, the emissions-comparison approach provides an appropriate basis for

determining potential impacts under each alternative. For a more detailed description of the

methodologies and assumptions used in this analysis, refer to Appendix U (p. 1651).

The following air pollutants were identified as pollutants that could be emitted as a result of

management actions and activities authorized, permitted, allowed, or performed under this RMP.

Emissions of each of these pollutants were estimated for each identified activity and addressed

for each alternative in this analysis.

● Carbon monoxide (CO)

● Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

● Ozone (O3)

● Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10)

● Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5)

● Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

● Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

● Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)

The following list of emissions-generating activities were identified as management actions and

activities authorized, permitted, allowed, or performed under this RMP that could emit identified

air pollutants and could adversely impact air quality in the planning area and Class I areas within

100 kilometers (approximately 60 miles) of the planning area. Emissions of air pollutants were

estimated for the baseline year (2008) and projected for two future years (2018 and 2027) for each

identified activity and addressed for each alternative in this analysis.

● Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development

● Leasable Minerals – Coalbed Natural Gas (CBNG) Development

● Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining

● Locatable Minerals – Gold Mining

● Locatable Minerals – Uranium Mining

● Salable Minerals – Sand, Gravel, and other Mineral Development

● Fire and Fuels Management – Planned and Prescribed Fire

● Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen Communities Management

● Land Resources – Renewable Energy, ROW, and Corridor Projects

● Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

● Land Resources – Livestock Grazing

Operations, production, and construction activity data used to estimate emissions for proposed

emission sources were obtained from Lander Field Office personnel, the Reasonable Foreseeable

Development (RFD) Scenario for Oil and Gas for the Lander Field Office, the Mineral

Occurrence and Development Potential Report, and from National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) analyses underway for BLM actions in the planning area. Emissions factors used to

estimate proposed emissions were obtained primarily from (1) the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (EPA 1995a), (2) the EPA

NONROAD2008a Emissions Model (EPA 2009c), (3) the EPA MOBILE6.2 Motor Vehicle

Emission Factor Model (EPA 2006), (4) the American Petroleum Institute Compendium of

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
598 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation Methodologies for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry

(American Petroleum Institute 2009), (5) the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ) – Air Quality Division, and (6) Western Governor’s Association – Western Regional

Air Partnership.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Air pollutant emissions are useful for comparing the relative impacts of each alternative and

might not represent actual future emissions. Emissions estimates are based on predictions of

future mineral resource development scenarios rather than actual development projects. Air

emissions modeling will be done as part of project-specific NEPA analyses.

● Stationary sources associated with oil and gas development will operate in accordance with

the Wyoming DEQ Oil and Gas Production Facilities Permitting Guidance, Chapter 6, Section

2, revised March 2010.

● Emissions from the following management actions were not estimated because the potential

for development was considered low: coal mining, phosphate mining, oil shale-tar sands

development, geothermal development, and gemstones and other lapidary materials

development.

● Emissions from the following management actions were not estimated because (1) the level of

activity is not expected to change between alternatives, and (2) the magnitude of emissions

from the activity is considered to be very small compared to other management activities, or

(3) available operational or production data was not sufficient to quantify emissions: wildfires

(unplanned), invasive species and pest management, grassland and shrubland management,

wild-horse management, and activities related to heritage and visual resources, socioeconomic

resources, and fish and wildlife resources.

4.1.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.1.1.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Concentrations of certain gases in Earth’s atmosphere have been identified as being effective

at trapping heat reflected off Earth’s surface, thereby creating a “greenhouse effect.” As

concentrations of these GHGs increase, Earth’s surface warms, the composition of the atmosphere

changes, and global climate is affected. Concentrations of GHGs have increased dramatically in

Earth’s atmosphere in the past century. These increases, particularly in carbon dioxide (CO2),

methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases have been attributed to man-made

sources and human activities (EPA 2010a).

The EPA has determined that six GHGs are air pollutants and subject to regulation under the Clean

Air Act (CAA): CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Of these GHGs, CO2, CH4, N2O are commonly emitted by the types of activities included in

this analysis, while the remaining three GHGs are emitted in extremely small quantities or are

not at all. GHG emissions from management actions and activities were estimated for each

alternative in this analysis for CO2, CH4, and N2O. Carbon sequestration through CO2 injection is

not addressed because at the time of analysis it was considered too speculative for estimation.

As the major component of natural gas, CH4 emissions from oil and gas exploration, production,

and transportation can be considerable. Emissions of CO2 and N2O from fossil fuel combustion

and fire can also be of concern. This analysis quantified emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from

the following management actions and activities for each alternative:

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 599

● Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining

● Locatable Minerals – Gold Mining

● Locatable Minerals – Uranium Mining

● Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development

● Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development

● Salable Minerals – Sand, Gravel, and other Mineral Development

● Fire and Fuels Management – Planned and Prescribed Fire

● Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen Communities Management

● Land Resources – Renewable Energy, ROWs, and Corridor Projects

● Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

● Land Resources – Livestock Grazing

Each GHG has been given a Global Warming Potential (GWP) number that accounts for the

intensity of the substance’s heat-trapping effect and its longevity in the atmosphere compared to

CO2. The EPA-recommended GWPs of 21 for CH4 and 310 for N2O were used in this analysis.

The estimated quantity emitted for each GHG was multiplied by its GWP and summed with the

other GHGs to obtain total GHGs emitted in CO2 equivalents in short tons. CO2 equivalents were

then converted to million metric tons (MMt), the typical reporting unit for GHG emissions.

Table 4.2, “Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year) Summary for BLM

Activities in the Lander Planning Area” (p. 599) shows the estimated annual emissions of the

GHGs under each alternative. Appendix U (p. 1651) includes additional details on the GHG

emissions calculations. That these numbers are estimates only, utilized for comparison purposes,

cannot be emphasized too strongly. Moreover, all are subject to modification based on changes

in technology, market conditions, and guidance, such as the limitation on prescribed fire for

greater sage-grouse protections.

Table 4.2. Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year) Summary for

BLM Activities in the Lander Planning Area

Scenario CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 equivalents

CO2 equivalents

(MMt)

Base Year – 2008

Base Year 169,265 8,619 3 351,311 0.33

Forecast Year – 2018

Alternative A 559,075 32,651 7 1,246,816 1.17

Alternative B 416,330 20,561 10 851,295 0.81

Alternative C 571,776 33,210 7 1,271,258 1.19

Alternative D 530,540 30,946 8 1,182,822 1.11

Forecast Year – 2027

Alternative A 463,202 26,699 6 1,025,689 0.96

Alternative B 339,404 16,070 10 679,856 0.64

Alternative C 475,621 27,242 6 1,049,511 0.98

Alternative D 438,381 25,276 7 971,142 0.91

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CO2 carbon dioxide

CH4 methane

MMt Million Metric Tons

N2O nitrous oxide

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
600 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

GHG emissions are estimated to increase under all alternatives over estimated baseline emissions

by almost 11⁄2 under Alternative B and more than 2 times under alternatives A, C, and D.

Alternative C shows the highest increases in GHG emissions due primarily to the higher

projected oil and gas production activities under that alternative. Oil and gas production is

the major contributor to GHG emissions under all alternatives. The largest sources of GHG

emissions in the oil and gas sector are CO2 emissions from natural gas compressors and drill rig

engines, and fugitive CH4 emissions from wellhead equipment, pneumatic devices, and tanks.

Estimated GHG emissions are based on worst-case estimates of production rates and operational

characteristics, and likely result in overestimated total GHG emissions. Considerable reductions

in these estimated emissions might be realized at the time of actual development through

control technologies such as electric compressor engines, “green completions,” low- or no-bleed

pneumatic devices, and capture and control of leaks and vents. All depend on variability in the

market demand for these products.

Table 4.3, “Lander Planning Area GHG Emissions as Percentage of Wyoming Statewide GHG

Emissions” (p. 600) compares project-related GHG emissions under each alternatives to a

statewide inventory of GHG emissions completed in 2007. The inventory was compiled for the

Wyoming DEQ by the Center for Climate Strategies and was based on actual emissions for

2005 and projected emissions for 2010 and 2020. GHG emissions estimated for each of the

alternatives comprise approximately 2 percent of statewide GHG emissions. As another means of

comparison, the total estimated GHG emissions for Alternative D are approximately equivalent

to the CO2 emissions from a 100 megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant or approximately

one-fifteenth the reported CO2 emissions from the Jim Bridger Power Plant in Sweetwater County

for 2009 (EPA 2009d). The total estimated GHG emissions under Alternative D of 1.11 MMt are

approximately equal to 0.01 percent of the total U.S. 2008 GHG emissions of 6,956 MMt (EPA

2010b). Assessing the impacts of GHG emissions on global climate change requires modeling on

a global scale, which is beyond the scope of this analysis. Potential impacts to climate change are

influenced by GHG emission sources from around the globe and it is not possible to distinguish

the impacts to global climate change from GHG emissions originating from the planning area.

Table 4.3. Lander Planning Area GHG Emissions as Percentage of Wyoming Statewide

GHG Emissions

Lander Planning Area Wyoming Statewide Inventory

Percent

Contribution

Scenario

Estimated GHG

Emissions (MMt

CO2 equivalents)

Year

Estimated GHG

Emissions (MMt

CO2 equivalents)

BLM GHGs to

Wyoming GHGs

Base Year - 2008 0.33 Actual Estimated

2005

55.6 0.60%

Alternative A - 2018 1.17 Projected 2020 69.4 1.69%

Alternative B - 2018 0.81 Projected 2020 69.4 1.16%

Alternative C - 2018 1.19 Projected 2020 69.4 1.72%

Alternative D - 2018 1.11 Projected 2020 69.4 1.60%

Source: Center for Climate Strategies 2007

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CO2 carbon dioxide

GHG greenhouse gas

MMt million metric tons

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 601

4.1.1.3.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts to air quality include changes in air pollutant concentrations, changes in visibility,

impacts to soils and vegetation from atmospheric deposition, and changes in lake chemistry.

Several key factors play a role in determining the severity of these impacts, such as the magnitude

and chemistry of the air emissions, meteorological conditions, and topography. Emissions were

quantified for each of the alternatives as an indication of the potential magnitude of impacts to air

quality under each alternative for purposes of making general comparisons and not as predictions

of what will occur. All of the alternatives would result in changes to emissions of air pollutants in

relation to the baseline year and would therefore result in impacts to air quality. For this analysis,

the magnitude of the change in emissions was analyzed to determine if impacts to air quality have

the potential to be significant (i.e., exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS ]

or exceed screening levels of concern for visibility and atmospheric deposition). Air dispersion

modeling can be used to determine ambient concentrations of air pollutants and impacts to

visibility; however, models depend on specific input data to predict impacts. These input data

include actual meteorological data, actual emissions data, emissions source spatial and temporal

data, and actual topographic data. At this stage of the planning process, these project-specific

data are not available. Proponents of mineral development projects will be required to perform a

NEPA analysis of the impacts of proposed projects to ambient air quality standards at the time

projects are proposed. Such an analysis could require a dispersion modeling analysis that includes

a demonstration of no adverse impacts in Class I areas.

Under all alternatives, oil and gas development is the single largest contributor to total air

pollutant emissions compared to other management activities. Activities quantified in this

category include well drilling and completion, road and well pad construction, flaring and

venting, compressor operations, dehydrator and separator operations, tank venting and loadout,

wellhead fugitives, pneumatic device operations, and vehicle traffic. The quantities of emissions

estimated from these activities are based on reasonably foreseeable estimates of production

rates, well counts, development rates, and existing technologies. The emissions numbers should

not be considered definitive and might not reflect actual emissions at the time of development

and are utilized for comparison among the alternatives. Although the quantity of emissions

calculated for this category might not represent actual emissions from eventual development, the

magnitude of differences in emissions estimated for this source category compared to the other

source categories is considerable. Emissions of NOx and VOCs from this category have the

potential to adversely impact air quality under each alternatives. These impacts could include

increased ambient concentrations of O3, decreases in visibility, adverse impacts to vegetation,

and increased atmospheric deposition. Emissions of particulate matter from this category could

increase ambient concentrations of particulate matter (fugitive dust), decrease visibility, and

increase atmospheric deposition. Emissions of HAPs could result in a localized increased risk of

adverse impacts to human health. The emissions estimated for CO under each alternative for this

category could contribute to the formation of O3. Estimated SO2 emissions for this category under

each alternative are minor and, although they could contribute to adverse impacts to visibility, it is

unlikely that these emissions would result in a major adverse impact to air quality by increasing

ambient concentrations of SO2 above the NAAQS. For additional information on significance

thresholds, refer to Appendix U (p. 1651).

The second largest contributor to total air pollutant emissions under each alternative is the

combined category of non-oil and gas mineral development. For the planning area, this is

estimated to primarily include bentonite, uranium, and gold exploration and mining and sand and

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
602 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

gravel sales. The primary pollutant of concern from this category is PM10. Particulate matter

emissions (fugitive dust) are primarily caused by earth-moving activities and vehicular traffic

on unpaved roads and surfaces associated with mine development and operation. Potential

mining exploration and development activities result in the largest single contributor to estimated

particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions. Particulate matter emissions from this category

under all alternatives have the potential to adversely impact air quality by increasing ambient

concentrations of particulate matter and decreasing visibility. Estimated emissions of NOx, VOCs,

and CO are substantially less for this category than for oil and gas development. Emissions of

these pollutants could result in minor impacts to air quality by contributing to increased ambient

concentrations of O3. Estimated emissions of SO2 and HAPs from this source category under

all alternatives are minor and it is not likely that these emissions would result in major adverse

impacts to air quality.

Two other source categories have estimated emissions that could result in impacts common to

all alternatives. CO emissions from fire management activities, primarily prescribed fire, have

the potential to result in increased ambient concentrations of O3. However, it is likely that the

differences among the alternatives using prescribed fire in the 70 percent of the planning area that

is in Core Area is likely to be minimal because of protections for greater sage-grouse. CO and

VOC emissions from trails and travel management, primarily OHV use, have the potential to

result in increased ambient concentrations of O3. Estimated emissions of other pollutants from

these two source categories would not be likely to result in major impacts to air quality.

There are several federally designated Class I areas within 100 kilometers (approximately 60

miles) of the planning area. Bridger Wilderness Area comprises the western border of the planning

area. Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area is in the planning area on the west. Washakie Wilderness Area

lies to the north and Teton Wilderness Area lie to the northwest. Although farther away than

100 kilometers, Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park are to the west and

northwest of the planning area. Management actions and activities under each of the alternatives

could impact Air Quality Related Values (i.e., visibility and atmospheric deposition) in these areas.

The Wyoming DEQ has the authority to implement emissions controls for sources requiring air

permits under Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations and to ensure that those sources

do not contribute to an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. To facilitate this process,

the BLM works in cooperation with Wyoming DEQ and other federal agencies to share, review,

and analyze emissions data, modeling results, and mitigation measures for development projects.

This cooperation would continue under all alternatives. In addition, the BLM could require

implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures within its authority to minimize adverse

impacts to air quality from development projects. Determination and application of such measures

would be completed during project approval, and would be subject to NEPA analysis at that time.

Refer to Appendix U (p. 1651) for additional information on BMPs and mitigation measures.

Management under all alternatives must adhere to the Lander Air Resources Management Plan

(Appendix F (p. 1491)), which was developed to address air quality issues identified during the

analysis for this document. The plan outlines specific requirements for managing air resources and

authorizing activities that have the potential to adversely impact air resources within the planning

area. The plan also provides specific requirements for projects that have the potential to generate

air emissions and adversely impact air resources within the planning area. In accordance with the

plan, quantitative air quality modeling of industrial activities may be required in order to determine

the potential impacts of proposed emission sources and subsequent potential mitigation strategies.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 603

Table 4.4, “Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity – Base Year 2008” (p. 603) lists the estimated

emissions for each pollutant from each emissions-generating activity analyzed for the base year

2008. Individual alternatives analyses compare estimated emissions to the baseline emissions.

Table 4.4. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity – Base Year 2008

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Leasable

Minerals

- Oil and

Natural Gas

125 29 449 4 206 1,498 247 2,558

Leasable

Minerals

- Coalbed

Natural Gas

4 1 4 0 2 2 0 13

Total Oil

and Gas

minerals

129 30 453 4 208 1,500 248 2,571

Locatable

Minerals -

Bentonite

Mining

101 11 0 0 0 0 0 113

Locatable

Minerals

- Gold

Mining

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Locatable

Minerals

- Uranium

Mining

37 6 30 1 13 3 0 89

Salable

Minerals -

Sand and

Gravel

282 39 174 4 81 13 1 594

Total NonOil and Gas

Minerals

422 56 204 5 94 15 2 797

Fire and

Fuels Management

71 30 8 2 271 14 1 397

Vegetation

- Forests,

Woodlands,

and Aspen

Communities

38 4 0 0 5 1 0 48

Land

Resources -

Renewable

Energy,

ROWs and

Corridors

13 1 2 0 1 0 0 18

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
604 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Land Resources

- Comprehensive Trails

and Travel

Management

9 6 6 1 472 191 19 704

Land

Resources

- Livestock

Grazing

80 8 5 0 86 4 0 183

TOTAL 761 135 678 11 1,138 1,726 270 4,719

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

CO carbon monoxide

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

ROWs rights-of-way

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

4.1.1.3.3. Alternative A

Table 4.5, “Estimated Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative A,

2018” (p. 605) and Table 4.6, “Estimated Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative

A, 2027” (p. 606) show the estimated emissions for each pollutant from each emission-generating

activity analyzed for Alternative A in 2018 and 2027, respectively. Appendix U (p. 1651) provides

the detailed emissions spreadsheets that are the basis for these tables. Non-oil and gas minerals

development accounts for the greatest estimated emissions of PM10 and PM2.5. Oil and gas

development accounts for the greatest estimated emissions for all other pollutants. It is important

to note that the emissions estimates for these two categories are based on reasonably foreseeable

estimates of future development and might not reflect actual emissions at the time of development.

Although estimated emissions are dominated by mineral development, the second highest source

of CO and VOC emissions under this alternative is from the Comprehensive Trails and Travel

Management sector. These emissions are generated primarily from OHVs (including all-terrain

vehicles, over-snow vehicles, and dirt bikes) and trail and road maintenance equipment.

Alternative A emissions estimates for 2018 show an increase of emissions of all pollutants over

the baseline year. The most substantial increases are projected to be for particulate matter, NOx,

VOCs, and HAPs, with percent increases all more than 170 percent. Figure 4.3, “Contribution

of Each Category to Total PM10 Emissions under Alternative A, 2018” (p. 607) through

Figure 4.6, “Contribution of Each Category to Total HAPs Emissions under Alternative, A

2018” (p. 610) show the relative contribution of each source category to emissions of these four

pollutants. Alternative A emissions estimates for 2027 show decreases in all pollutants from 2018

levels in the range of 5 to 22 percent, depending on the pollutant. This is likely due to decreases

in oil and gas production and mining activities over the long term. It is likely that the increases in

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 605

estimated emissions over baseline would result in increased concentrations of ambient O3 and

NOx, and short-term impacts to visibility. Given the current background levels of pollutants, it is

not likely that emissions under Alternative A would contribute to an exceedance of a national or

state ambient air quality standard.

Table 4.5. Estimated Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative A, 2018

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Leasable

Minerals

- Oil and

Natural Gas

371 87 1,325 11 607 4,401 725 7,528

Leasable

Minerals

- Coalbed

Natural Gas

60 15 256 1 126 173 44 675

Total Oil

and Gas

minerals

431 101 1,582 12 733 4,574 769 8,203

Locatable

Minerals -

Bentonite

Mining

542 59 10 0 12 2 0 625

Locatable

Minerals

- Gold

Mining

314 77 8 0 5 1 0 406

Locatable

Minerals

- Uranium

Mining

254 34 128 3 55 12 1 487

Salable

Minerals -

Sand and

Gravel

330 41 79 4 39 9 1 504

Total NonOil and Gas

Minerals

1,440 211 225 8 111 25 2 2,022

Fire and

Fuels Management

55 27 8 2 271 14 1 378

Vegetation

- Forests,

Woodlands,

and Aspen

Communities

138 14 0 0 5 1 0 158

Land

Resources -

Renewable

Energy,

ROWs and

Corridors

45 5 2 0 1 0 0 54

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
606 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Land Resources

- Comprehensive Trails

and Travel

Management

7 4 7 1 526 119 12 676

Land

Resources

- Livestock

Grazing

80 8 4 0 86 4 0 183

Total 2,195 371 1,829 23 1,734 4,737 786 11,674

Percent

Change

over Base

Year

188 174 170 109 52 174 191 147

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

CO carbon monoxide

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

ROWs rights-of-way

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

Table 4.6. Estimated Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative A, 2027

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Leasable

Minerals

- Oil and

Natural Gas

326 76 1,115 11 501 3,435 563 6,027

Leasable

Minerals

- Coalbed

Natural Gas

57 14 233 1 114 156 40 614

Total Oil

and Gas

minerals

383 89 1,348 12 615 3,592 603 6,641

Locatable

Minerals -

Bentonite

Mining

542 59 5 0 10 1 0 617

Locatable

Minerals

- Gold

Mining

310 76 8 0 5 1 0 401

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 607

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Locatable

Minerals

- Uranium

Mining

177 26 120 3 52 12 1 391

Salable

Minerals -

Sand and

Gravel

313 37 27 3 17 8 1 406

Total NonOil and Gas

Minerals

1,341 198 160 7 84 22 2 1,815

Fire and

Fuels Management

55 27 8 2 271 14 1 378

Vegetation

- Forests,

Woodlands,

and Aspen

Communities

138 14 0 0 5 1 0 158

Land

Resources -

Renewable

Energy,

ROWs and

Corridors

45 5 1 0 1 0 0 52

Land Resources

- Comprehensive Trails

and Travel

Management

6 3 8 1 522 88 9 637

Land

Resources

- Livestock

Grazing

80 8 4 0 86 4 0 183

Total 2,047 344 1,528 22 1,583 3,722 616 9,863

Percent

Change

from 2018

-7 -7 -16 -5 -9 -21 -22 -16

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

CO carbon monoxide

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

ROWs rights-of-way

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
608 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

O&G oil and gas

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

ROWs rights-of-way

Figure 4.3. Contribution of Each Category to Total PM10 Emissions under Alternative A,

2018

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 609

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

NOX nitrogen oxides

O&G oil and gas

ROWs rights-of-way

Figure 4.4. Contribution of Each Category to Total NOx Emissions under Alternative A, 2018

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
610 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

O&G oil and gas

ROWs rights-of-way

VOC volatile organic compound

Figure 4.5. Contribution of Each Category to Total VOCs Emissions under Alternative A,

2018

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 611

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

O&G oil and gas

ROWs rights-of-way

Figure 4.6. Contribution of Each Category to Total HAPs Emissions under Alternative, A

2018

4.1.1.3.4. Alternative B

Alternative B emissions estimates are the lowest of all the alternatives for total air pollutant

emissions and for each analyzed pollutant except CO and SO2. Table 4.7, “Estimated

Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative B, 2018” (p. 612) and

Table 4.8, “Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative B,

2027” (p. 614) show the estimated emissions for each pollutant from each emission-generating

activity analyzed for Alternative B in 2018 and 2027, respectively. See Appendix U (p. 1651) for

additional details on emissions calculations.

The overall lower estimated emissions under this alternative are due to restrictions on oil and

gas development, potential restrictions on bentonite mining in designated Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern (ACECs), lower projected acres of disturbance for ROWs and corridors,

no new development under livestock grazing, and no new renewable-energy development. The

greater emissions of CO and SO2 estimated for this alternative are due primarily to the larger

acreage of disturbance predicted for prescribed fire, although it is likely that this will not be a

major increase because of limitations on the use of prescribed fire in greater sage-grouse Core

Area. Figure 4.7, “Contribution of Each Category to Total CO Emissions under Alternative B,

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
612 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2018” (p. 615) and Figure 4.8, “Contribution of Each Category to Total SO2 Emissions under

Alternative B, 2018” (p. 616) show the relative contribution of fire management activities to the

emissions of these two pollutants. Alternative B acres of disturbance due to prescribed fire

are triple the amount under alternatives A and C and double the amount under Alternative D.

This would result in more smoke being generated by prescribed fire under this alternative than

under other alternatives, and larger emissions of CO and SO2 from this source category. Overall,

emissions under this alternative for 2018 are estimated to increase by 83 to 142 percent over

baseline emissions, depending on the pollutant.

Like Alternative A, potential oil and gas activities are the predominant source of NOx, VOC,

and HAPs emissions and potential mining activities are the predominant source of PM10 and

PM2.5 under Alternative B. The second largest source of VOC emissions is projected for the

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management sector, which includes emissions from OHVs and

road and trail maintenance vehicles. Alternative B emissions estimates for 2027 show decreases

in all pollutants from 2018 levels in the range of 4 to 22 percent, depending on the pollutant. This

is likely due to decreases in oil and gas production and mining activities over the long term.

Impacts to O3 ambient concentrations from emissions of NOx, VOC, and CO under Alternative

B are expected to be the least of all of the alternatives, as are impacts to particulate matter

concentrations. Impacts to visibility could result from projected mineral development activities,

but would be the least under Alternative B.

Table 4.7. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative B, 2018

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Leasable

Minerals

- Oil and

Natural Gas

312 73 1,120 9 516 3,796 627 6,453

Leasable

Minerals

- Coalbed

Natural Gas

13 3 51 0 25 34 9 134

Total Oil

and Gas

minerals

325 76 1,171 9 541 3,830 635 6,587

Locatable

Minerals -

Bentonite

Mining

147 16 3 0 4 1 0 171

Locatable

Minerals

- Gold

Mining

314 77 8 0 5 1 0 406

Locatable

Minerals

- Uranium

Mining

254 34 128 3 55 12 1 487

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 613

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Salable

Minerals -

Sand and

Gravel

319 40 76 4 38 9 1 486

Total NonOil and Gas

Minerals

1,033 167 215 7 101 23 2 1,550

Fire and

Fuels Management

178 90 25 7 902 47 5 1,254

Vegetation

- Forests,

Woodlands,

and Aspen

Communities

199 20 0 0 5 1 0 225

Land

Resources -

Renewable

Energy,

ROWs and

Corridors

19 2 1 0 1 0 0 23

Land Resources

- Comprehensive Trails

and Travel

Management

6 4 7 1 526 119 12 675

Land

Resources

- Livestock

Grazing

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 1,760 359 1,420 24 2,077 4,019 654 10,315

Percent

Change

over Base

Year

131 165 110 121 83 133 142 119

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

CO carbon monoxide

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

ROWs rights-of-way

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
614 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 4.8. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative B, 2027

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Leasable

Minerals

- Oil and

Natural Gas

273 63 938 9 424 2,957 485 5,149

Leasable

Minerals

- Coalbed

Natural Gas

13 3 46 0 23 30 8 123

Total Oil

and Gas

minerals

285 66 984 9 447 2,988 493 5,272

Locatable

Minerals -

Bentonite

Mining

147 16 1 0 3 0 0 168

Locatable

Minerals

- Gold

Mining

310 76 8 0 5 1 0 401

Locatable

Minerals

- Uranium

Mining

177 26 120 3 52 12 1 391

Salable

Minerals -

Sand and

Gravel

301 36 26 3 16 8 1 391

Total NonOil and Gas

Minerals

934 154 156 7 77 21 2 1,351

Fire and

Fuels Management

178 90 25 7 902 47 5 1,254

Vegetation

- Forests,

Woodlands,

and Aspen

Communities

199 20 0 0 5 1 0 225

Land

Resources -

Renewable

Energy,

ROWs and

Corridors

19 2 0 0 0 0 0 21

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 615

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Land Resources

- Comprehensive Trails

and Travel

Management

5 3 8 1 522 88 9 636

Land

Resources

- Livestock

Grazing

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 1,621 335 1,173 23 1,953 3,145 509 8,760

Percent

Change

from 2018

-8 -7 -17 -4 -6 -22 -22 -15

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

CO carbon monoxide

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

ROWs rights-of-way

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
616 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

CO carbon monoxide

O&G oil and gas

ROWs rights-of-way

Figure 4.7. Contribution of Each Category to Total CO Emissions under Alternative B, 2018

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 617

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

SO2 sulfur dioxide

O&G oil and gas

ROWs rights-of-way

Figure 4.8. Contribution of Each Category to Total SO2 Emissions under Alternative B, 2018

4.1.1.3.5. Alternative C

Table 4.9, “Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative C,

2018” (p. 618) and Table 4.10, “Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under

Alternative C, 2027” (p. 620) lists estimated emissions under Alternative C for 2018 and 2027,

respectively. Alternative C would result in the greatest estimated emissions of all the alternatives

for total air pollutant emissions and for each analyzed pollutant except CO. Alternative C allows

for the most development of mineral resources and includes a large potential wind-energy project

with up to 2,400 turbines. In addition, Alternative C allows for increased acres of disturbance for

forestry projects and ROW projects. All of these management actions and activities account for

increased levels of air pollutant emissions. The estimated acreage for prescribed fire under this

alternative is approximately 1⁄2 the acreage estimated for Alternative B; this accounts for the lower

estimated CO emissions under this alternative. Estimated emissions for 2018 under this alternative

are projected to increase by 55 to 279 percent over baseline emissions, depending on the pollutant.

Like alternatives A and B, the primary contributors to air pollutant emissions under Alternative

C are non-oil and gas minerals development and oil and gas development. However, the most

noticeable difference in emissions between this alternative and alternatives A and B is the

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
618 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

increase in particulate matter emissions due primarily to potential projects in the renewable

energy and ROW sectors. The increases in particulate matter would result from short-term

construction-related activities. Any impacts that could result from these emissions would likely

be short in duration. Figure 4.9, “Contribution of Each Category to Total PM10 Emissions under

Alternative C, 2018” (p. 621) and Figure 4.10, “Contribution of Each Category to Total PM2.5

Emissions under Alternative C, 2018” (p. 622) show the relative contribution of these sectors to

total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, respectively.

Although estimated emissions are dominated by mineral and renewable energy development, the

second highest source of CO and VOC emissions under this alternative is from the Comprehensive

Trails and Travel Management sector. These emissions are generated primarily from OHVs

(including all-terrain vehicles, over-snow vehicles, and dirt bikes) and trail and road maintenance

equipment. Alternative C emissions estimates for 2027 show decreases in all pollutants from

2018 levels in the range of 5 to 22 percent, depending on the pollutant. This is likely due to

decreases in oil and gas production and mining activities over the long term.

It is likely that the increases in estimated emissions over baseline would result in increased

concentrations of ambient O3, NOx, and particulate matter, and potential impacts to visibility.

Given the current background levels of pollutants, it is not likely that emissions under Alternative

C would contribute to an exceedance of a national or state ambient air quality standard.

Table 4.9. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative C, 2018

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Leasable

Minerals

- Oil and

Natural Gas

371 87 1,328 11 608 4,410 727 7,542

Leasable

Minerals

- Coalbed

Natural Gas

61 15 258 1 127 175 44 682

Total Oil

and Gas

minerals

433 102 1,586 12 736 4,585 771 8,225

Locatable

Minerals -

Bentonite

Mining

542 59 10 0 12 2 0 625

Locatable

Minerals

- Gold

Mining

314 77 8 0 5 1 0 406

Locatable

Minerals

- Uranium

Mining

254 34 128 3 55 12 1 487

Salable

Minerals -

Sand and

Gravel

387 49 95 5 47 11 1 595

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 619

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Total NonOil and Gas

Minerals

1,497 218 241 9 119 26 3 2,113

Fire and

Fuels Management

58 28 8 2 271 14 1 382

Vegetation

- Forests,

Woodlands,

and Aspen

Communities

269 27 0 0 5 1 0 302

Land

Resources -

Renewable

Energy,

ROWs and

Corridors

539 56 26 1 14 4 0 641

Land Resources

- Comprehensive Trails

and Travel

Management

7 4 7 1 526 119 12 677

Land

Resources

- Livestock

Grazing

84 8 5 0 87 4 0 189

TOTAL 2,887 443 1,873 25 1,758 4,754 788 12,529

Percent

Change

over Base

Year

279 228 176 125 55 175 192 166

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

CO carbon monoxide

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

ROWs rights-of-way

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
620 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 4.10. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative C,

2027

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Leasable

Minerals

- Oil and

Natural Gas

327 76 1,117 11 501 3,442 564 6,037

Leasable

Minerals

- Coalbed

Natural Gas

57 14 235 1 115 158 40 619

Total Oil

and Gas

minerals

384 89 1,351 12 617 3,599 604 6,656

Locatable

Minerals -

Bentonite

Mining

542 59 5 0 10 1 0 617

Locatable

Minerals

- Gold

Mining

310 76 8 0 5 1 0 401

Locatable

Minerals

- Uranium

Mining

177 26 120 3 52 12 1 391

Salable

Minerals -

Sand and

Gravel

370 44 33 4 21 9 1 481

Total NonOil and Gas

Minerals

1,398 205 165 8 88 24 2 1,890

Fire and

Fuels Management

58 28 8 2 271 14 1 382

Vegetation

- Forests,

Woodlands,

and Aspen

Communities

269 27 0 0 5 1 0 302

Land

Resources -

Renewable

Energy,

ROWs and

Corridors

539 55 9 1 6 3 0 614

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 621

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Land Resources

- Comprehensive Trails

and Travel

Management

6 3 8 1 522 88 9 637

Land

Resources

- Livestock

Grazing

84 8 5 0 87 4 0 189

TOTAL 2,737 416 1,546 24 1,596 3,734 617 10,670

Percent

Change

from 2018

-5 -6 -17 -5 -9 -21 -22 -15

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

CO carbon monoxide

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

ROWs rights-of-way

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
622 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

O&G oil and gas

ROWs rights-of-way

Figure 4.9. Contribution of Each Category to Total PM10 Emissions under Alternative C,

2018

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 623

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

O&G oil and gas

ROWs rights-of-way

Figure 4.10. Contribution of Each Category to Total PM2.5 Emissions under Alternative C,

2018

4.1.1.3.6. Alternative D

Alternative D estimated total emissions are the second lowest of the four alternatives. Estimated

emissions of PM10, NOx, VOCs, and HAPs under this alternative rank next to lowest of the four

alternatives. This is due to less projected oil and gas development, locatable mineral development,

renewable-energy development, and fewer ROW projects under this alternative than under

alternatives A and C. Estimated emissions of PM2.5 and SO2 are predicted to be slightly greater

under this alternative than under alternatives A and B, and estimated emissions of CO are predicted

to be greater under this alternative than under alternatives A and C due primarily to the increased

acreage of disturbance predicted for prescribed fire. As with Alternative B, it is not possible to

determine the extent to which prescribed fire will be utilized outside of Core Area. Estimated

emissions for 2018 for this alternative are projected to increase by 65 to 181 percent over baseline,

depending on the pollutant. Alternative D emissions estimates for 2027 show decreases in all

pollutants from 2018 levels in the range of 5 to 22 percent, depending on the pollutant. This is

likely due to decreases in oil and gas production and mining activities over the long term.

Table 4.11, “Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative D,

2018” (p. 624) and Table 4.12, “Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
624 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative D, 2027” (p. 626) lists estimated emissions under Alternative D for 2018 and 2027,

respectively. Under this alternative, oil and gas development is the dominant category of

estimated emissions of NOx, SO2, VOCs, and HAPs. Non-oil and gas development accounts for

most of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Total air pollutant emissions are dominated by these two

source categories under this and the other alternatives. Figure 4.11, “Contribution of Oil and Gas

Development Emissions to Total Emissions by Alternative, 2018” (p. 627) and Figure 4.12,

“Contribution of Non-Oil and Gas Mineral Development Emissions to Total Emissions by

Alternative, 2018” (p. 628) are provided as a tool to compare the contribution of these sectors

to total emissions among alternatives. Figure 4.11, “Contribution of Oil and Gas Development

Emissions to Total Emissions by Alternative, 2018” (p. 627) shows the contributions from oil

and gas development under all alternatives; Figure 4.12, “Contribution of Non-Oil and Gas

Mineral Development Emissions to Total Emissions by Alternative, 2018” (p. 628) shows the

contributions from non-oil and gas mineral development (mining) sector.

Although estimated emissions of the air pollutants analyzed are dominated by mineral

development, the second highest source of CO and VOC emissions under this alternative is

from the Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management sector. These emissions are generated

primarily from OHVs (including all-terrain vehicles, over-snow vehicles, and dirt bikes) and trail

and road maintenance equipment.

Potential impacts to air quality under Alternative D include potential increases in ambient

concentrations of O3, NOx, and particulate matter, and potential impacts to visibility. Given the

current background levels of pollutants, it is not likely that emissions under Alternative D would

contribute to an exceedance of a national or state ambient air quality standard. However, under

this alternative, proponents of mineral development projects (or any project likely to impact air

quality) will be required to demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards and other

federal, state, and local air quality regulations. This demonstration could include air dispersion

modeling, photochemical grid modeling, and the application of mitigation measures and control

technologies prior to project authorization by the BLM.

Table 4.11. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative D,

2018

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Leasable

Minerals

- Oil and

Natural Gas

358 84 1,282 11 588 4,274 705 7,301

Leasable

Minerals

- Coalbed

Natural Gas

52 12 217 1 107 147 37 572

Total Oil

and Gas

minerals

410 96 1,498 12 695 4,421 742 7,873

Locatable

Minerals -

Bentonite

Mining

395 43 7 0 8 1 0 454

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 625

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Locatable

Minerals

- Gold

Mining

314 77 8 0 5 1 0 406

Locatable

Minerals

- Uranium

Mining

254 34 128 3 55 12 1 487

Salable

Minerals -

Sand and

Gravel

330 41 79 4 39 9 1 504

Total NonOil and Gas

Minerals

1,293 195 222 8 107 24 2 1,852

Fire and

Fuels Management

75 43 13 3 450 23 2 610

Vegetation

- Forests,

Woodlands,

and Aspen

Communities

217 22 0 0 5 1 0 245

Land

Resources -

Renewable

Energy,

ROWs and

Corridors

37 4 2 0 1 0 0 44

Land Resources

- Comprehensive Trails

and Travel

Management

7 4 7 1 526 119 12 676

Land

Resources

- Livestock

Grazing

84 8 5 0 87 4 0 189

TOTAL 2,122 373 1,747 24 1,872 4,592 759 11,489

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
626 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Percent

Change

over Base

Year

179 176 158 114 65 166 181 143

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

CO carbon monoxide

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

ROWs rights-of-way

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

Table 4.12. Estimated Annual Emissions by Activity (tons per year) under Alternative D,

2027

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Leasable

Minerals

- Oil and

Natural Gas

315 73 1,077 10 484 3,335 547 5,841

Leasable

Minerals

- Coalbed

Natural Gas

49 12 196 1 96 132 33 520

Total Oil

and Gas

minerals

364 84 1,274 11 581 3,467 580 6,361

Locatable

Minerals -

Bentonite

Mining

395 43 3 0 7 1 0 449

Locatable

Minerals

- Gold

Mining

310 76 8 0 5 1 0 401

Locatable

Minerals

- Uranium

Mining

177 26 120 3 52 12 1 391

Salable

Minerals -

Sand and

Gravel

313 37 27 3 17 8 1 406

Total NonOil and Gas

Minerals

1,194 182 158 7 81 22 2 1,647

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 627

Emission

Generating Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOCs HAPs

Total Air

Pollutant

Emissions

Fire and

Fuels Management

75 43 13 3 450 23 2 610

Vegetation

- Forests,

Woodlands,

and Aspen

Communities

217 22 0 0 5 1 0 245

Land

Resources -

Renewable

Energy,

ROWs and

Corridors

37 4 1 0 0 0 0 42

Land Resources

- Comprehensive Trails

and Travel

Management

6 3 8 1 522 88 9 637

Land

Resources

- Livestock

Grazing

84 8 5 0 87 4 0 189

TOTAL 1,976 347 1,458 23 1,727 3,606 594 9,730

Percent

Change

from 2018

-7 -7 -17 -5 -8 -21 -22 -15

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

CO carbon monoxide

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

ROWs rights-of-way

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality
628 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

Alt. Alternative

Figure 4.11. Contribution of Oil and Gas Development Emissions to Total Emissions by

Alternative, 2018

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 629

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

Alt. Alternative

O&G oil and gas

Figure 4.12. Contribution of Non-Oil and Gas Mineral Development Emissions to Total

Emissions by Alternative, 2018

4.1.2. Geologic Resources

There are no management actions associated with geologic resources. Management associated

with certain geologic features, such as Beaver Rim and Red Canyon, are addressed in the section

that addresses management of the specific values associated with the feature, such as visual

resources management of the geologic features of Beaver Rim.

Health and safety issues associated with geologic features, such as earthquake potential, are

addressed in the Health and Safety section.

4.1.3. Soil

Direct adverse impacts to soil resources result from actions that remove vegetative cover, compact

soil, reduce infiltration, create changes in physical and biological properties, and reduce organic

matter content. These direct impacts to soils tend to result primarily from removing vegetative

cover, loosening the surface soil, the formation of compacted layers, and increasing the potential

for accelerated erosion by exposing soil particles to wind and water. Disrupting natural soil

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Geologic Resources
630 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

horizons and removing vegetation to construct roads, well pads, and other facilities cause a loss

of soil productivity.

Disrupting soil stability, increasing compaction, and reducing productivity generally result in

indirect adverse impacts to other resources. For example, adverse impacts to soil can degrade

water quality through sedimentation of drainages and perennial waterbodies, degrade air quality

through increased airborne particulate matter, and result in the loss of vegetation from a decrease

in infiltration and an increase in surface water runoff. Although such indirect impacts to other

resources are the result of soil disturbance, these impacts are analyzed in sections that address

those other resources.

In addition to surface disturbance, surface uses that directly disturb the surface can affect soil

stability through changes in vegetative cover or soil infiltration rates. Such surface uses include

livestock grazing (improper livestock grazing management could allow livestock to damage

vegetative cover and compact soil), vegetative treatments, cross-country travel, and fire and fuels

management. Operating motorized vehicles, especially heavy equipment, on moist soils is likely

to compact the surface layer. This can decrease infiltration and aeration and could reduce soil

productivity by making it more difficult for plant roots to grow and obtain soil moisture and

nutrients.

Short-term impacts to soils result during initial surface disturbance before vegetation can be

reestablished or before other measures are implemented to minimize erosion from wind and

water. The amount of bare ground predicted under each alternative after successful reclamation of

disturbed areas is an indicator of long-term adverse impacts to soils. Areas not reclaimed and left

with bare soil include roads and areas around facilities that experience concentrated surface uses

by equipment or animals that would preclude the reestablishment of vegetation. There would be

long-term impacts from accelerated erosion in locations where bare soils are allowed to remain

exposed to wind and water. Other long-term impacts to soils include the loss of fertility through

removing or greatly altering the soil profile in areas where facilities and structures are built.

4.1.3.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternative B would result in the least amount of surface disturbance and would impose the

most restrictions on resource uses, resulting in the fewest adverse impacts to soil resources of

any alternative. Conversely, based on anticipated surface disturbance alone, Alternative C would

result in the most adverse impacts to soil resources. Alternative C manages surface disturbance

more like Alternative A than Alternative B, and would result in impacts similar to Alternative

A. Alternative D would result in beneficial impacts to soil resources similar to Alternative

B although less beneficial.

4.1.3.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Approximately 161,076 acres of federal surface in Sweetwater and Carbon counties have no

detailed soils data and are excluded from this analysis. Soil erosion hazard in these areas

could not be determined, although general impacts to soils in these counties would likely

be the same as those in the mapped areas.

● The potential for soil erosion has not been modeled for any portion of the planning area. Such

modeling could be done on a site-specific basis where more complete information regarding

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 631

proposed disturbance would be available. Soils with a severe hazard rating for erosion

experience more adverse impacts from surface-disturbing activities than soils with low or

moderate hazard ratings for erosion. Medium- and fine-textured soils are most prone to water

erosion and soil compaction when they are wet. Course-textured soils are more prone to wind

erosion. Silty-textured soils are prone to both forms of erosion.

● Surface disturbance under each alternative could modify soils by disrupting soil stability,

changing vegetative cover, decreasing productivity, and increasing compaction. If these

modifications occur on highly erodible soils, the potential for accelerated erosion would be

approximately 40 percent greater (USFS 2004b) than predicted for less erodible soils. From a

soil resources perspective, the cause of surface disturbance makes relatively little difference in

the level of adverse impacts to soil. Some activities, such as wind-energy development, can

result in more compaction, but this can be evaluated only on a site-specific basis. Accordingly,

the acres of reasonably foreseeable long- and short-term disturbance are provided by resource

use. The more disturbance, the more adverse impacts to soil resources.

● According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) National Soils Handbook (NRCS No Date), most soils on slopes greater than

15 percent experience soil erosion loss rates that are very difficult to control with standard

erosion control measures, and very difficult to reclaim.

● Installing and maintaining erosion controls and implementing other impact mitigation

measures, such as BMPs, results in a substantial reduction in soil erosion, ranging between 40

and 97 percent, depending on site conditions (USFS 2008). However, these measures might

not reduce soil compaction and loss of productivity.

● Bare soil (without vegetation or other surface cover) with a surface layer that has been

altered from its natural condition is more susceptible to accelerated erosion from wind and

water than undisturbed soil.

● Soil compaction is considered a localized impact common to, for example, livestock

concentration areas and cattle trails, particularly during times when soils are wet, and

high-traffic areas such as roads, walking paths, hiking trails, or OHV trails.

● Short-term impacts to vegetation depend on the time it takes for a disturbed area to become

revegetated, generally 1 to 5 years.

● The criteria for final stabilization requires uniform perennial vegetative cover with a density

of 70 percent of the native background vegetative cover for the area, and no rills or gullies

in excess of natural conditions. This assumption does not consider the adequacy of wildlife

habitat or livestock grazing goals for rehabilitation, which commonly takes longer to achieve;

final stabilization for soils purposes is not the same as returning soil and vegetation to

predisturbance conditions. Some existing plant communities likely would not be reestablished

to predisturbance structure and density for more than 20 years.

● In areas of limited reclamation potential (LRP), timeframes for successful interim and final

reclamation of oil and gas well pads and flow lines and access roads are longer, and there is

less probability of successful reclamation. The risk of BMP failure is greater on soils rated as

moderate or severe for erosion. To be effective on these soils, more extensive reclamation

and more aggressive maintenance techniques than those commonly used on soils with a

slight erosion hazard are required.

● Frozen soils can be utilized for operations with appropriate care; all alternatives allow such

activities.

● On lands open to minerals entry, surface management operators are governed by reclamation

and performance standards focused on preventing unnecessary or undue degradation (43 Code

of Federal Regulations [CFR] 3809). An operator is not governed by stipulations that might

be imposed for salable or leasable minerals via land use planning decisions, but claimants

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil
632 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

may voluntarily commit to operating practices in their notice or Plan of Operations submittals.

In addition, the Authorized Officer could impose conditions when approving a Plan of

Operations. A Plan of Operations is required for exploration that would disturb more than 5

acres, the removal of bulk samples of 1,000 or more tons, or for surface-disturbing activities

more than casual use in special status areas such as designated ACECs and areas closed to

cross-country vehicle use; see 43 CFR 3809.11. The restrictions that the BLM can apply to

surface disturbance under a Plan of Operations do not preclude soil degradation that is not

“undue or unnecessary.”

● The BLM Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation standards in the Department of the

Interior (DOI) Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Guidebook (DOI 2006b) and

the BLM Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook H-1742-1

(BLM 2007d) are implemented for wildland fires to protect and sustain healthy ecosystems

and to protect life and property. These standards do not vary by alternative.

● It is assumed that disturbances to soils that have a severe hazard rating for erosion or LRP are

distributed across the landscape in the same proportion as the distribution of these soils, unless

a proposed management action specifies additional protective measures. In other words, if 5

percent of the soils in the planning area are rated as having a severe potential for erosion, it is

assumed that 5 percent of the projected total disturbance would occur on such soils.

● All alternatives include timing and seasonal limitations for surface disturbance and disruption,

although Alternative B includes more extensive restrictions than the other alternatives.

However, these controlled surface uses (CSUs) do not protect soil over the long term; once

the timing restriction has passed, habitat could be disturbed, fragmented, or made unsuitable.

Accordingly, differences in timing limitations among the alternatives are not analyzed for

impacts to soils.

● The BLM has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Fremont County Weed and

Pest Department to treat invasive nonnative species (INNS) on public land. This treatment is

performed by pedestrians carrying the chemicals in backpacks. There is no surface disturbance

associated with this treatment. The funding for this treatment does not vary by alternative and

could increase or decrease with BLM budget priorities. In addition, if a particular management

action under one of the alternatives, such as protections for groundwater, prohibits

implementation of the pesticide program, it is assumed that the treatment would be applied to

another location. Treatment funds are the limiting factor, not locations to treat. Therefore,

INNS treated acres do not vary by alternative and are not further addressed in this section.

● The use of non-carbon fueled electrical generation has beneficial impacts through the

avoidance of GHG production. However, calculation of such benefits is beyond the nature and

purpose of this document. Projects such as industrial wind-energy generation or the mining of

uranium result in local surface disturbance that adversely impacts soil, vegetation, water, and

other resources and uses. This document analyzes these disturbances, but not the downstream

use of the fuels produced from BLM-authorized activities in the planning area.

● Implementing and achieving Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix

J (p. 1537)) improves vegetation health, vigor, cover, and litter, and minimizes erosion in most

areas, with correspondingly beneficial impacts to soil resources.

● Fire suppression and rehabilitation activities also can adversely impact soil resources over the

short and long terms. Activities such as firebreak construction, clearing vegetation, and use

of heavy equipment would disturb the soil surface and increase erosion over the short term.

For example, fire lines constructed during suppression efforts can channelize surface runoff,

which can result in gully erosion. Over the long term, however, successful stabilization

efforts can increase vegetative cover, and subsequently reduce the natural rate of erosion.

Fire suppression and rehabilitation activities do not vary by alternative, and impacts to soil

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 633

resources would be the same under all alternatives. Prescribed fire varies moderately by

alternative, but all alternatives would limit the use of prescribed fire in Core Area.

● Each of the alternatives varies in the acres open to mineral materials disposals. However, the

BLM assumes that the historic demand of 183 acres of disturbance each year would not

vary by alternative. Sand and gravel is readily available throughout the planning area, and

other sources (whether on private or other public lands) will be available to meet demand.

Therefore, impacts to soil resources from mineral materials disposals are not further addressed

in this section. Although mineral materials disposals would adversely impact soils, those

impacts would not vary by alternative.

● Under all alternatives, 69,276 acres are unavailable for livestock grazing because those acres

are unsuitable for that purpose (such as the Sweetwater Rocks, which have no forage), safety

reasons such as along highway shoulders, or for other reasons. The number of acres not

available for grazing because of reasons recognized earlier than 1987 and which constitute

less than 3 percent of the planning area do not vary by alternative and are not further

addressed in this section.

● Under all alternatives, soil resources are managed on a case-by-case basis and in accordance

with BLM state policies and the Wyoming Stormwater Discharge program requirements for

BLM-authorized surface-disturbing activities that fall under this program – currently, surface

disturbances of 1 or more acre.

● Surface-disturbing activities associated with minerals and realty development expose soils to

increased erosion over the short and long terms. Increases in surface disturbance related to

lands and realty actions and minerals development can be expected to result in a proportionate

increase in adverse impacts to soils.

● Surface disturbance from locatable minerals entry, mineral materials disposals, and solid

minerals leasing is not expected to vary by alternative. Therefore, impacts from these

activities are not expected to vary, and these programs are not further addressed in this section.

● Concentrated herbivory that can result from range improvement projects can adversely

impact soils when the removal of herbaceous vegetation is excessive and adequate vegetation

does not remain to protect the soil resource. This can be a source of soil compaction that

reduces infiltration, increases runoff, and hampers reclamation. The alternatives vary in their

approaches to range improvement projects.

● All alternatives require management to protect soil resources. This includes analyzing

all surface-disturbing activities for suitability of use and impacts; requiring a detailed

project-specific reclamation plan; requiring that all suitable topsoil material be salvaged;

minimizing project footprints; requiring reclamation plans that identify the plant community

for each phase of reclamation for long-term disturbances; and requiring monitoring by the

operator to determine reclamation success. These types of BMPs would result in the same

beneficial impacts to soil resources under all alternatives, and are not further addressed in

this section.

● All alternatives manage Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in accordance with the Interim

Guidance. This management would beneficially impact soils because most surface-disturbing

activities would be prohibited in WSAs. However, adverse impacts to soils could result

if there is a wildfire in a WSA, because fire suppression would not be allowed. Because

WSA management is the same under all alternatives (except for minor differences in travel

management), impacts to soils would not vary by alternative. Accordingly, WSAs are not be

further addressed in this section.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil
634 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.1.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.1.3.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Soils on BLM-administered surface lands and federal mineral estate could be disturbed under

each alternative by activities proposed across a variety of resource programs. Adverse impacts

to soils associated with these disturbances are predicted under each alternative, although the

intensity of the impacts would vary across alternatives. Appendix T (p. 1641) lists projected

surface disturbance by alternative during the planning period. These are estimates that are utilized

to compare impacts across resources; these are not predictions of future events, which are most

usually controlled by factors such as market conditions beyond the BLM’s authority.

INNS that form monoculture stands, such as leafy spurge and Russian knapweed, can acerbate

erosion through reduced vegetative cover. The same is true of infestations of annual weeds

like cheatgrass and halogeton. The presence of INNS can alter natural fire regimes to the point

that increased fire frequency leads to accelerated soil erosion. Some annual weeds can have

a short-term beneficial impact because they can serve as a nurse crop, although a poor one,

to give a limited degree of erosion protection while species planted for reclamation establish.

INNS treatment does not vary by alternative.

Various methods would be utilized to minimize impacts to soil resources under all alternatives.

BMPs, watershed enhancement projects, conservation practices, Storm Water Discharge Plans,

Weed Management Area Plans, project-specific soil investigations, and reclamation plans are

designed to reduce impacts to soil. While these practices and actions would not result in an

actual beneficial impact to soils, they can result in more successful reclamation, reduce impacts

during the time the soil is bare, and reduced runoff, soil erosion, and sediment yield. Limiting

motorized vehicle use off of existing roads and trails would prevent route proliferation and

vegetation removal that could increase erosion. In addition, management actions that restore

plant communities, particularly to the extent historic disturbance is reclaimed, enhance soil

resources by restoring infiltration, organic matter content, and productivity, and reducing erosion.

Impacts from surface-disturbing and disruptive activities are mitigated through the application

of the Wyoming BLM Standard Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive

Activities (Appendix M (p. 1595)).

The standard statewide stipulation that prohibits surface-disturbing activities during periods when

watershed damage is likely to occur is applied under all alternatives. This prohibition would

protect soil resources and would not vary by alternative. All alternatives have removed the

prohibition of use of frozen soils as not providing resource benefits.

Fuels management is generally the same under all alternatives, although the acres of treatment

would vary by alternative. Acres treated depend on available funds to pay for treatment, which

varies depending on the amount of funds used on range improvements. No long-term surface

disturbance or associated erosion is anticipated from prescribed fire, or chemical or mechanical

fuels treatments following reclamation. Fuels management could have an adverse short-term

impact and a beneficial long-term impact on soil resources. Soil-disturbing vegetative treatment

projects under all alternatives would result in short-term increases in erosion, but these should

be ameliorated over the short to long terms as treated sites reestablish vegetation, and would

have a long-term beneficial impact to soils.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 635

Forest product sales are expected to be uniform across the alternatives. Although Alternative A

manages forest product sales with board-feet restrictions in certain areas, demand for forest

products is anticipated to be so low that board-feet forest restrictions would not be likely to result

in different impacts by alternative. Similarly, although Alternative C has the fewest restrictions

on forest management, including the use of silviculture techniques such as clear-cuts, this

management would depend on market demand for timber products. With all alternatives assuming

a flat demand regardless of management prescriptions, there would be no differences in impacts to

soil resources from forest products management among the alternatives. BMPs for silviculture

techniques to reduce adverse impacts to soils and other resources are provided.

Fire in the planning area can impact soils over the short term by removing vegetation and

exposing soils to water and wind erosion. Impacts to rangeland and forest soils from fire are

highly dependent on burn severity, which is a function of the peak temperatures and duration of

the fire. Under certain conditions, hot fires can create hydrophobic soil conditions (i.e., resistance

to water infiltration), whereby runoff and erosion are increased. On steep-sloped sites, the impacts

from fire on soil resources can be major, with research showing that a 3-year cumulative water

flow on severely burned sites was nearly 20 times that of similar unburned sites. On some sites,

research indicates that more than three years could be required to return to background levels

of soil loss and overland water flow (Pierson et al. 2008, Certini 2005). Over the long term,

however, provided that vegetative recovery is successful, fire can have a beneficial impact on soil

resources by improving land health and reducing erosion and the risk of landscape-level fire. In

general, fire management does not vary by alternative, particularly in light of evidence that full

suppression of wildland fire and avoiding planned fire in greater sage-grouse habitat might be

appropriate. On a site-specific basis, impacts from fire management could vary by alternative, but

on a planning area basis, differences are too speculative to be further analyzed. All alternatives

apply full suppression to wildland fire in Core Area.

All alternatives manage soils and grassland and shrubland communities to meet Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangelands. The standards are utilized to protect and improve rangeland

health and are generally effective in managing impacts to soils from livestock grazing. The

differences between favoring production more oriented toward wildlife than livestock would not

lead to different impacts to soils as a result of management emphasis unless the management

action prevents achieving Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Riparian-wetland areas are to be managed to meet or exceed proper functioning condition (PFC)

and Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. This can involve rest or deferment from grazing

pressure, fencing projects, structural in-stream projects, or any combination thereof. Fencing and

in-stream structural placement will necessarily disturb soil over the short term, and an increase in

erosion over natural levels; however, over the long term, erosion rates should return to natural

levels. In addition, when riparian-wetland areas do not meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands, it is usually because a degraded condition is accelerating erosion.

Impacts to soil resources from wild horses are similar to impacts from livestock, because wild

horses prefer to eat grasses and visit water projects and riparian-wetland zones for water. Horses

can compact soils, cave stream banks, and denude areas near water or salt licks or trails, and

can spread INNS that can adversely impact soils if they become established. However, wild

horses travel more widely than livestock in the course of a day and do not generally loiter in

riparian-wetland areas. This tends to spread their impacts over a larger area and dilute the overall

effect, although they can cause localized adverse impacts to soils.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil
636 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Management of wild horses necessarily involves periodic roundups using light-duty trucks,

trailers, heavy duty-trucks, aircraft, and entrapment locations. Some of these activities create

short-term surface disturbance, usually less than 1 acre of total disturbance. However, horse

roundups are infrequent, although increasing, and do not occur at the same location for several

years and at some locations only once. These gather locations are upland sites that are expected

to recover well over the short to long term.

The acreage of WSAs (55,338 acres) is the same under all alternatives, and all alternatives

prohibit surface-disturbing activities in those areas.

All alternatives include actions that restrict surface disturbance in the planning area, and those

restrictions generally would have a beneficial impact on soil resources. For example, withdrawals

that close areas to surface-disturbing activities, or requirements for construction, operation,

monitoring, and rehabilitation planning before surface-disturbing activities are initiated would, at

a minimum, reduce the potential for adverse impacts to soils from surface-disturbing activities.

Under all alternatives, INNS are managed on a case-by-case basis. Vegetative treatments,

including INNS control, would reduce adverse impacts to soil from INNS spread. The amount of

vegetative treatment, including INNS control, vary by alternative. INNS infestations can lead to

accelerated erosion and loss of soil fertility.

The Westwide Corridor in the northeast section of the planning area was established as part of a

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and is common to all alternatives. Impacts

to soils from the Westwide Corridor would not vary by alternative, and this designated corridor is

not further addressed in this section. Other designated ROW corridors are discussed below.

4.1.3.3.2. Alternative A

4.1.3.3.2.1. Program Management

Alternative A allows surface-disturbing activities in LRP areas with mitigation on a

project-by-project basis using a detailed site analysis and reclamation objectives. Alternative A

manages mineral and realty actions in these areas with CSU restrictions. In addition, Alternative A

avoids surface disturbance on LRP soils whenever possible. See Map 11 for identified LRP soils.

Alternative A applies the standard statewide stipulations (see Appendix M (p. 1595)) that prohibit

surface-disturbing activities during periods when soil is frozen or saturated, or when watershed

damage would be likely, and restricts surface occupancy on slopes equal to or greater than 25

percent. See Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander

Planning Area” (p. 45) for the number of acres associated with these restrictions that benefit soils.

Under Alternative A, as opportunities arise, areas of past soil disturbance that have not been

successfully reclaimed would be identified and project-specific reclamation plans developed;

this would beneficially impact soil resources.

4.1.3.3.2.2. Resources

Alternative A air quality management would result in slightly adverse impacts to soil resources

because degradation of existing air quality would be allowed to continue as long as federal air

quality standards (adopted by the State of Wyoming) were not exceeded. Restrictive air quality

management would impose PM10 limits that could be achieved, in part, by limiting surface

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 637

disturbance. Alternative A water resource management would neither benefit nor adversely

impact soil resources. Unlike Alternative B, which manages the Little Red Creek Complex

near Whiskey Mountain as non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics, Alternative A does

not specifically manage these lands for wilderness characteristics. However, the portion of the

Little Red Creek Complex in the Whiskey Mountain ACEC is managed in accordance with

ACEC-specific management which provides additional resource protections. For the non-ACEC

portion of the WSA, travel management is limited to existing roads and trails, with no beneficial

impact to soil resources.

Alternative A limits surface disturbance within 500 feet of surface water and riparian-wetland

areas, which would beneficially impact soil resources in those areas. Alternative A INNS

management does not require livestock flushing to prevent the spread of INNS; this would

adversely impact soil resources.

Management actions under Alternative A designed to protect wildlife and special status species

habitat from the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities also would protect

soil resources from these adverse impacts. While timing limitations would not beneficially impact

soils, some wildlife protections (e.g., closing the area within 1⁄4 mile of greater sage-grouse leks)

would beneficially impact soil resources in those areas. On a case-by-case basis, Alternative

A closes and reclaims unnecessary roads and old minerals exploration trails, which would

beneficially impact soil resources.

The limited management prescriptions under Alternative A designed to protect cultural,

paleontological, and visual resources from the impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive

activities also would protect soil resources from these activities (see sections specific to those

resources).

4.1.3.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A authorizes surface-disturbing activities under the minerals and ROW programs.

Appendix T (p. 1641) lists the projected acreage of surface disturbance by activity. Alternative A

would result in 52,591 acres of short-term and 12,439 acres of long-term surface disturbance.

Long-term disturbance would not necessarily adversely impact other resources such as water or

air. Soil permanently disturbed because it supports a wind turbine, for example, would not support

vegetation, but also would not contribute to sedimentation of waterways.

Alternative A does not designate any ROW corridors (other than the Westwide Corridor common

to all alternatives). Alternative A co-locates future ROWs in existing ROWs where possible.

Alternative A identifies a limited amount of public surface as ROW avoidance areas and ROW

exclusion areas. The data in Appendix T (p. 1641) for ROW disturbance are based on historic

trends, which are expected to continue into the future.

Alternative A opens most of the planning area to livestock grazing and allows range improvement

projects. Appendix T (p. 1641) lists the projected long-term surface disturbance associated with

range improvement projects during the planning period. Concentrated herbivory can result in

adverse impacts when the removal of herbaceous vegetation is excessive and adequate vegetation

does not remain to protect soil resources. Concentrated herbivory can compact soil and reduce

infiltration, increase runoff, and hamper reclamation. Livestock grazing management under

Alternative A provides for the protection or enhancement of resource values, which would

beneficially impact soils. Alternative A prohibits the placement of salt or mineral supplements

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil
638 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

within 1⁄4 mile of water, riparian-wetland areas, and reclaimed or reforested areas, which would

reduce vegetation removal and soil compaction from concentrated livestock grazing and traffic.

Alternative A addresses problems with rangeland health through a variety of livestock grazing

management approaches, including fenced riparian-wetland exclosures and pastures, short-term

rest, and grazing strategies that favor riparian-wetland enhancement. This alternative allows

rangeland improvement projects, including spring development, pipeline development,

reservoir/pit development, fence development, well development, and reservoir maintenance, on

a case-by-case basis. Such projects are predicted to result in surface disturbance of 860 acres

during the planning period, or approximately 43 acres per year. Rangeland improvement projects

can result in short-term accelerated erosion from fence installation or livestock walking on the

surface, but these adverse impacts would be offset by improvements to soil resources.

Under Alternative A, revegetation is expected to occur within several growing seasons.

Long-term erosion rates should return to normal as upland sites farther from water are reclaimed

to an appropriate percentage of ground cover that would be expected for the historic plant

community for a given site. However, unprotected water developments subject to improper

livestock grazing management would typically become denuded of vegetation and subject to

accelerated erosion. Soil compaction, reduced infiltration, increased surface water runoff, and

trail formation can occur in these upland to wet lowland (or water development) transition zones.

This can compound the localized soil degradation usually found near uncontrolled water sources

by channeling upland runoff in the transition zones down to the lowlands.

Recreation-related adverse impacts to soil resources, such as soil compaction, soil particle

detachment, dust evolution, and increased vulnerability to water and wind erosion, can occur from

authorized large-group activities, the repeated use of undeveloped campsites, and cross-country

mechanized (bicycle) travel. See Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use

Decisions in the Lander Planning Area” (p. 45) for the number of acres closed to motorized travel

and over-snow vehicles under Alternative A. Seasonal closures would protect soil resources

during times when adverse impacts could occur.

4.1.3.3.2.4. Special Designations

Alternative A manages nine waterbodies (9,919 acres) identified as eligible for inclusion in

the National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS) for their outstanding remarkable values

(ORVs) by limiting surface-disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of these waterbodies; this would

beneficially impact soils in that buffer.

Alternative A places moderate to major constraints on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities

in certain special designation areas where surface disturbance is minimized. Alternative A

designates 119,622 acres as ACECs; this would trigger the requirement for Plans of Operation for

surface-disturbing activities greater than casual use. This provides the BLM with a tool to help

avoid adverse impacts to soil resources, particularly during exploration. Alternative A avoids

seven of the nine ACECs for ROWs. ROW avoidance protects soil resources and prevents the

adverse impacts associated with ROW surface disturbances. Alternative A ROW management in

those seven ACECs recognizes that soils and vegetation are part of the values supporting ACEC

designation, whether because the soils themselves are sensitive (Dubois Badlands), because

they contribute to a viewshed (Red Canyon), or because the soils support vegetation critical to

protected wildlife (Whiskey Mountain). Alternative A manages surface disturbance in the two

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 639

ACECs not avoided for ROWs (Green Mountain and Beaver Rim) to protect identified values of

concern, which would beneficially impact soil resources in those areas.

4.1.3.3.3. Alternative B

4.1.3.3.3.1. Program Management

Management actions under Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing and disruptive activities

in LRP areas, which would be more protective of soil resources than Alternative A. The risk of

rehabilitation failure, and often soil strength issues, for roads and work locations in sandy soils

is greatest in LRP soils. Standard operating procedures and BMPs typically do not work well,

and additional measures must be employed to limit soil erosion and comply with Clean Water

Act (CWA) Stormwater Discharge program requirements. The risk of BMP failure is greater in

LRP areas. Impacts to soil resources under Alternative B would be more beneficial than impacts

under Alternative A because Alternative B limits surface disturbances to soils that have the best

potential for rehabilitation after disturbance.

Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing activities on slopes in excess of 15 percent, where the

potential for erosion is greater than on slopes less steep. Alternative B would beneficially impact

soil resources because it limits surface disturbance to slopes less prone to experience high erosion

rates and losses of soil fertility, and more easily stabilized and rehabilitated after disturbance.

Alternative B protects far more acres from surface disturbance than Alternative A.

In addition, Alternative B requires a thorough inventory of areas with disturbed soils that have not

been successfully reclaimed, and requires those areas be prioritized for reclamation. Compared

to Alternative A, this would beneficially impact soil resources because soil erosion and fertility

losses would eventually cease in these disturbed areas and productivity would be restored to

the historic plant community for each site. Alternative A takes a less comprehensive, indirect

approach to identifying unsuccessful reclamation and would not protect these areas from the

adverse impacts of accelerated erosion as well as Alternative B.

4.1.3.3.3.2. Resources

Alternative B management prohibits motorized and mechanized travel in lands with wilderness

characteristics managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics which would protect

soil resources in these areas. Alternative A does not specially manage these lands; therefore,

Alternative B would result in more beneficial impacts to soil resources in these areas. In addition,

Alternative B management of the Little Red Creek Complex could reduce the demand for its

use for motorized access to other lands, which would beneficially impact soil resources in that

area. Alternative B management of forest products is more restrictive than Alternative A;

however, this management would not be likely to result in a substantial beneficial impact to soil

resources because commercial demand for forest products is expected to be depressed during

the planning period.

Alternative B INNS management is more aggressive than Alternative A, and includes livestock

flushing when appropriate; this would beneficially impact soils more than Alternative A.

Alternative B riparian-wetland resources management prohibits surface-disturbing activities

within 1,320 feet of surface water, riparian-wetland areas, playas, and 100-year floodplains,

where mapped. This wide buffer, coupled with the slope restrictions on surface use, would

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil
640 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

protect soil resources from surface disturbance and resulting erosion, and result in more beneficial

impacts to soil resources than Alternative A. Alternative B protects more than double the acres in

riparian-wetland areas and transition zones than Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, the BLM would construct and upgrade a wild-horse viewing loop road,

which would beneficially impact soils in that area. This road would be built to BLM Manual

9113, Roads (BLM 1985), design specifications and likely be surfaced with crushed rock or

asphalt. The road would likely be from 10 to 20 miles long to accommodate sightseeing tourists

and weekend traffic. Short-term adverse impacts would include increased erosion in the area of

construction, but as cut-and-fill slopes were rehabilitated, long-term impacts from erosion should

be negligible. While Alternative B would increase visitation for wild-horse viewing, which would

increase the potential for INNS introduction, improving the existing road would beneficially

impact soil resources compared to the use of unimproved roads under Alternative A.

Management actions under Alternative B designed to protect wildlife and special status species

habitat from the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities also would protect

soil resources from these activities. Alternative B increases the areas closed to surface-disturbing

activities for the protection of wildlife. While this management action would not affect areas

already leased, if the leases expire, the area would not be re-leased. Closing greater sage-grouse

Core Area to leasing would avoid surface disturbances associated with oil and gas development,

which would result in a substantial beneficial impact to soil resources compared to Alternative A.

Alternative B also would beneficially impact soil resources by systematically inventorying and

closing unnecessary roads and trails and prescribing rehabilitation for them. This would result in

a greater beneficial impact to soil resources than Alternative A, which applies this management

action on a case-by-case basis.

Management prescriptions under Alternative B designed to protect cultural, paleontological, and

visual resources from the impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities also would

protect soil resources from these activities and from the undesirable impacts associated with

accelerated erosion. Generally, Alternative B would provide the greatest secondary protections to

soil resources by taking a more proactive approach to resource protection.

4.1.3.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Appendix T (p. 1641) identifies the projected surface disturbance from oil and gas development.

Surface disturbance from oil and gas operations under Alternative B would be moderately less

than under Alternative A. This would beneficially impact soils.

Alternative B makes far fewer acres available for wind-energy development than Alternative A;

see Appendix T (p. 1641). This management would reduce surface disturbance and adverse

impacts to soil. In addition to the actual footprints of the wind-energy structures and related

facilities, there would be increased soil disturbance from additional roads and transmission lines

associated with such development. Alternative B will protect more land from surface disturbances

that would provide opportunities for the introduction of INNS than Alternative A.

Alternative B confines future major ROWs to designated corridors, currently 15,364 acres. This

is a very small area designated for future major ROWs. Alternative B also places very high

restrictions on ROWs outside of corridors (exclusion and avoidance areas). Alternative B also

includes 315,219 acres of ROW avoidance areas and 1,919,029 acres of exclusions areas. Less

disturbance related to ROW development would result in fewer adverse impacts to soil resources.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 641

Alternative B authorizes livestock grazing on 2,312,095 acres, 12,839 fewer acres than

Alternative A. A more important difference in impacts to soil resources from livestock grazing

between alternatives A and B arises from the limitation on construction of new rangeland

developments. Alternative B limits new developments to areas where there are no conflicts

with other resources, which is much more restrictive than Alternative A and avoids the surface

disturbance associated with rangeland improvements and related livestock concentration. While

fencing can protect riparian-wetland resources, which also would benefit soil resources, fences

and other developments could result in adverse impacts from livestock concentration.

Under Alternative B, the BLM takes a passive-management oriented, non-project development

approach to correcting identified PFC and Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands

deficiencies, rather than authorizing range improvement projects to improve conditions. This

approach could benefit soil resources on low slopes without compacted soils in moist locations.

These would recover over the short to long terms. However, this might not benefit soil resources

as quickly as management under Alternative A, which authorizes the use of range improvement

projects to rehabilitate or enhance riparian-wetland areas, which could yield desirable results

sooner, depending on degradation at a specific site. However, there are tradeoffs in using range

improvement projects; fencing could protect riparian-wetland resources, but fences could

adversely impact soils in other areas. See the discussion under Alternative A.

In addition, Alternative B prohibits the placement of salt or mineral supplements on many more

acres than Alternative A, which would result in more beneficial impacts to soil resources. These

limitations would reduce vegetation removal, soil compaction, runoff, and the risk of accelerated

erosion from concentrated livestock grazing and traffic. Alternative B also provides for the

establishment of forage reserves as opportunities arise. This approach would result in the fewest

adverse impacts to soil resources from range improvement projects over the short and long terms.

Alternative B would result in more beneficial impacts to soil resources than Alternative A

because Alternative B livestock grazing management allows only light utilization. Alternative A

establishes forage utilization levels for livestock grazing on a case-by-case basis, which would

result in adverse impacts to soil through compaction, loss of vegetation (which would result in

higher erosion and less infiltration), and loss of vegetative diversity.

Alternative B closes 71,761 acres to motorized travel, 12.1 times more acres than Alternative A.

Alternative B seasonally closes slightly more acres to motorized travel than Alternative A, and

limits motorized travel to designated roads and trails on slightly more acres than Alternative A.

Far more acres (181,173) are closed to over-snow vehicle use and over-snow travel is limited to

conditions with at least 12 inches of snow. Otherwise, over-snow vehicle use would be considered

the same as any other kind of motorized travel, which would be limited to existing (or designated,

where appropriate) roads. In this regard, Alternative B would result in more substantial beneficial

impacts to soil resources because cross-country travel by over-snow vehicles can damage

vegetation and soil resources if the ground is not protected by a depth of snow. More restrictive

travel, in general, under Alternative B would result in fewer adverse impacts from accelerated

erosion than under Alternative A.

4.1.3.3.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative B closes all WSAs to motorized and mechanized travel. This management would

beneficially impact soil resources by minimizing soil erosion in these areas. Alternative A does

not close most WSAs to motorized travel.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil
642 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Wild and Scenic River (WSR) management under Alternative B would result in impacts the same

as Alternative A. From a practical standpoint, WSR classification would not provide additional

beneficial impacts to soil resources because the Sweetwater Canyon WSR is within the WSA,

where surface disturbance is limited and soil resources are protected.

Alternative B designates a total of 1,492,990 acres of ACECs, and applies moderate to severe

constraints on surface-disturbing activities in ACECs and requires Plans of Operation. These

protections are extended to approximately 12.5 times more acreage than Alternative A, and

therefore result in substantially more beneficial impacts to soil resources than Alternative A.

4.1.3.3.4. Alternative C

4.1.3.3.4.1. Program Management

Soils program management under Alternative C is similar to management under Alternative A.

There would be more adverse impacts to soil resources under Alternative C than under Alternative

A, and substantially more than under Alternative B. While Alternative A includes more CSU

limitations than Alternative C, which applies only standard stipulations, in most cases these

additional restrictions would result in very few beneficial impacts to soil resources except in

special designations areas. Like Alternative A, Alternative C avoids surface disturbance on slopes

equal to or greater than 25 percent, which is much less restrictive than Alternative B.

4.1.3.3.4.2. Resources

Management actions for air and water resources under Alternative C are similar to those under

Alternative A and less restrictive than under Alternative B; see Alternative B for the comparison

of impacts to soil resources between alternatives A and B. The Alternative B limitation on surface

disturbance in water recharge areas or sole-source aquifers would be more protective of soil

resources than Alternative C, which, like Alternative A, does not include similar protections.

Alternative C does not specially manage lands with wilderness characteristics, including lands

in the Little Red Creek Complex near Dubois. Therefore, Alternative C would result in more

adverse impacts to those lands and their soil resources than Alternative A or B.

Alternative C emphasizes the use of structural projects to make progress toward PFC and

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, whereas Alternative B relies on passive solutions

and Alternative A uses a mix of approaches. This is further discussed under livestock grazing.

INNS management prescriptions under Alternative C are the same as those under Alternative

A, which is less proactive than Alternative B and therefore less effective at controlling erosion

related to INNS infestations. Alternative C includes substantially more surface disturbance

associated with oil and gas production than Alternative B, and somewhat more than Alternative

A, with associated adverse impacts to soil resources.

Alternative C riparian-wetland management actions are very similar to those under Alternative

A, except in cases where it can be shown that equivalent riparian-wetland protections could be

achieved using a shorter buffer distance (within the 500-foot buffer). This buffer would afford

some protection for native plant communities from potential soil compaction and accelerated

erosion over the short and long terms, but would not protect native plant communities as well as

Alternative A or B, although the difference between alternatives A and C would be minor.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 643

Alternative C wildlife management is generally the same as management under Alternative A

regarding wildlife protections, including protections for greater sage-grouse leks. Alternative

C does not close and reclaim unnecessary roads and old mineral exploration trails, unlike

Alternative A, which does so on a case-by-case basis, and Alternative B, which more actively

identifies and rehabilitates redundant and hazardous roads. The difference in adverse impacts to

soils between alternatives A and C would be minor.

Management prescriptions under Alternative C designed to protect cultural, paleontological, and

visual resources from the impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities also would

protect soil resources from the impacts of these activities.

4.1.3.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Surface-disturbing activities associated with mineral development expose soils to increased

erosion potential over the short and long terms (for projected acres of disturbance under

Alternative C, see Appendix T (p. 1641)). Alternative C increases the amount and severity of

surface disturbances related to minerals development (leasable and locatable minerals, mineral

materials disposals, and geothermal leasing) substantially compared to alternatives A and B,

which would be expected to result in a proportionate increase in adverse impacts to soil from

compaction and accelerated erosion. This would be particularly true for soil resources in greater

sage-grouse Core Area, which Alternative B closes to oil and gas leasing.

See Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander Planning

Area” (p. 45) for acres open, avoided, or excluded for industrial wind-energy development

under Alternative C. Alternative C opens many more acreage to wind-energy development than

Alternative B, and slightly more than Alternative A. In addition to the actual footprints of

wind-energy structures and related facilities, there would be more surface disturbance and risk of

accelerated erosion from additional roads and power transmission corridors associated with such

development. The differences among the alternatives are less substantial when the analysis is

limited to areas that have commercial wind-energy potential. Alternative C protects less land

from surface disturbances than Alternative A, and much less land than Alternative B.

Alternative C ROW management would result in substantially more adverse impacts to soil

resources because the alternative opens much more area to surface disturbance than Alternative A

or B. Alternative C makes the most land available for ROWs and includes the fewest acres of

ROW exclusion and avoidance areas compared to alternatives A and B. Because it allows the

most surface disturbance, Alternative C would result in greatest impacts to soil resources from

soil compaction and accelerated erosion. Under Alternative C, designation of ROW corridors

would help to limit disturbance from new ROWs to areas near existing disturbance which would

reduce the adverse impacts to soil resources.

Alternative C opens the same amount of the planning area to livestock grazing as Alternative

A. Alternative C allows moderate grazing (41 to 60 percent) rather than setting utilization

levels on a case-by-case basis, as does Alternative A, or by prescribing light (20 to 40 percent)

utilization levels, as does Alternative B. This higher (moderate) utilization would necessitate more

monitoring and leave less room for error than light utilization, risk greater adverse impacts to

the plant community because it would increase soil compaction in livestock concentration areas,

and accelerate erosion from the removal of vegetation below the threshold at which a particular

site would experience adverse impacts. New range improvement projects under Alternative C

would disturb the most areas of any alternative.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil
644 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative C emphasizes the use of structural projects and comprehensive grazing strategies

to make progress toward PFC and Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands that would,

if properly applied, yield the fastest results in riparian-wetlands improvement, and therefore

beneficially impact soils. However, project work is expensive, planning typically requires more

than 2 years, monitoring and repair of structures are more intensive than passive management,

and funds for such improvements are not always available. Moreover, while improved

riparian-wetland health can benefit soil resources, livestock concentration areas associated with

range developments would adversely impact soil. These impacts could exceed the beneficial

impacts to soils from riparian-wetland improvement.

Alternative C includes the same management for the placement of salt or mineral supplements

as Alternative A, thus protecting the same areas from adverse impacts to soil resources, but

fewer areas than Alternative B.

Roads and trails are prime locales for soil compaction and accelerated erosion and the fewer acres

open to traffic, the fewer chances for damage to soil resources. Alternative C closes far fewer

(5,472) acres to motorized travel than under Alternative B and slightly less than the acres closed

under Alternative A. Alternative C limits motorized travel to designated roads and trails on only

about a quarter of the roads of either Alternative A or B. While Alternative C travel management

is less protective of soil resources than Alternative A or B, Alternative C, like all alternatives,

does prohibit cross-country vehicular traffic, which would protect large areas without roads from

the adverse impacts of cross-country travel.

There would be no acres seasonally closed to motorized travel under Alternative C or other limits

on over-snow travel, which would adversely impact soils by allowing travel at times when soils

are wet and most susceptible to damage. This would be more adverse to soil resources than either

Alternative A or B. Alternative C is the least restrictive for motorized travel in the planning

area, and would allow the most opportunities for adverse impacts from soil compaction and

accelerated erosion.

4.1.3.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C manages Congressionally Designated Trails the same as Alternative A, with the

same limited protection of soils in a 1⁄4-mile buffer along the Congressionally Designated Historic

Trails and no protections for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST).

WSA management under Alternative C is the same as Alternative A, which does not close most

WSAs to motorized travel. The impacts to soil resources under Alternative C would be similar

to impacts under Alternative A, and more adverse than under Alternative B, which closes all

WSAs to motorized travel.

Alternative C does not manage any waterways to maintain their suitability for inclusion in the

NWSRS; so therefore, there are no protections for the soils in the 1⁄4-mile buffer applied to

designated sections. This would have a minor adverse impact to soils compared to alternatives

A and B.

Alternative C does not designate ACECs; therefore, it limits surface management to standard

statewide stipulations. This would result in more adverse impacts to soil resources than Alternative

A or B, and compared to Alternative B, much greater adverse impacts. The ACEC designations

under alternatives A and B require submittal of Plans of Operation for surface-disturbing activities

greater than casual use, and some ACEC designations limit surface occupancy and surface

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 645

disturbance. These measures would decrease the likelihood of adverse impacts to soil resources

from surface-disturbing activities and INNS over the short and long terms best under Alternative

B, and less under Alternative A. Alternative C does not provide similar protections.

4.1.3.3.5. Alternative D

4.1.3.3.5.1. Program Management

Soils program management under Alternative D is generally similar to management under

Alternative B, but would result in more adverse impacts to soil resources than Alternative

B. Alternative D would result in substantially fewer adverse impacts to soil resources than

alternatives A and C, particularly in those areas where surface disturbance is limited or prohibited

for the protection of wildlife, viewsheds, cultural, or other resource values. The Required Design

Features mandated under Alternative D make it more similar to the reduced adverse impacts to

soils resources associated with Alternative B, but far less adverse because of the very limited

development that would occur in Core Area under Alternative B.

4.1.3.3.5.2. Resources

Management actions for air and water resources under Alternative D are similar to those under

Alternative A and less restrictive than those under Alternative B, and would result in the same

minor adverse impacts to soil resources. Alternative D management of surface disturbance in

water recharge areas or sole-source aquifers is the same as Alternative B and more protective

of soil resources than alternatives A and C.

Alternative D manages slightly fewer acres of the Little Red Creek Complex as non-WSA lands

with wilderness characteristics than Alternative B. This management would result in essentially

the same beneficial impacts to soils as Alternative B, considerably more than Alternative C, and

slightly more than Alternative A.

Management of forest product sales and forests and woodlands under Alternative D only limits

silviculture techniques as needed to protect resources. This would likely result in more beneficial

impacts to water than alternatives A and C, which include artificial slope and riparian-wetland

limitations, regardless of impacts. While the more restrictive management under Alternative B

would result in more short-term beneficial impacts, over the long term, the limits on silviculture

techniques under Alternative B would be likely to result in more adverse impacts because no

commercial thinning or fuels reductions would be likely. However, as previously stated, the

actual impacts to soil resources would not vary substantially by alternative because of depressed

demand for forest products.

INNS management prescriptions under Alternative D are the same as under Alternative B.

Alternative D has Required Design Features to protect wildlife habitat, particularly sagebrush

obligates, and health and human safety from mosquitoes, a vector of West Nile virus (WNV).

These Required Design Features would secondarily help to reduce adverse impacts to water

quality from surface disposal of produced water or “blow out” reservoirs. The degree of benefit

depends on the extent of produced water from mining activities and the number and kind of

livestock reservoirs created. Compared to alternatives A and C, Alternative D takes a more

proactive approach to INNS management, such as flushing livestock and adjusting terms and

conditions of authorized activities to help control INNS. This management would benefit soils

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil
646 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

because it would help prevent erosion related to INNS infestations. Moreover, Alternative D

involves the second lowest amount of surface disturbance and second greatest management focus

on reducing duplicative roads after Alternative B. The best indicator of INNS infestation potential

is the amount of surface disturbance and roads.

Riparian-wetlands management under Alternative D applies the same riparian-wetlands buffer

as Alternative A and would result in similar beneficial impacts to soil resources. This buffer

will afford some protection to native plant communities from potential soil compaction and

accelerated erosion over the short and long terms, but not as much protection as Alternative

B. The Alternative D management approach for riparian-wetlands relates to livestock grazing

management; impacts to soil resources are addressed in the discussion below under Resource

Uses for grazing management.

Alternative D is similar to Alternative B in its wildlife protections, including greater sage-grouse

lek protections, except that Alternative D is less protective, particularly outside Core Area and

regarding solid minerals leasing. Alternative D wildlife management is more protective of soil

resources than Alternative A, and considerably more protective than Alternative C, because

Alternative D closes much more area to surface disturbance.

Management prescriptions under Alternative D designed to protect cultural, paleontological, and

visual resources from the impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities also would

protect soil resources from these activities. See resource-specific sections for the prescriptions.

Generally, Alternative D provides the second most secondary protections against INNS invasion

and erosion, preceded by Alternative B and followed by Alternative A and then Alternative C.

4.1.3.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Surface-disturbing activities associated with minerals development expose soils to increased

erosion potential and INNS invasion over the short and long terms (for projected acres of

disturbance under Alternative D, see Appendix T (p. 1641)). Alternative D decreases the

amount and severity of surface disturbance related to minerals development (leasable minerals,

locatable minerals, mineral materials disposals, and geothermal leasing) substantially compared to

alternatives A and C, but much less than Alternative B, particularly in Core Area. In addition, the

Required Design Features mandated under Alternative D would further reduce adverse impacts to

soil by limiting disturbance size and location. This would be expected to result in a proportionate

decrease in risk of adverse impacts to soil (e.g., compaction and accelerated erosion). Alternative

D would result in fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B because Alternative D applies

fewer major constraints to oil and gas leasing and opens Core Area to oil and gas leasing. This

would be particularly true for soil resources outside greater sage-grouse Core Area, except for

areas protected with No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations for the benefit of other wildlife

and resources. As indicated above, Required Design Features under Alternative D would reduce

the adverse impacts associated with development, but would still allow some adverse impacts

to occur, unlike Alternative B, under which leasing and locatable mineral activity is strictly

limited so that soil disturbances would not occur.

See Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander Planning

Area” (p. 45) for acres open, avoided, or excluded from industrial wind-energy development

under Alternative D. Wind-energy development adversely impacts soil and water resources on

the actual footprint of the wind-energy structures and related facilities, and through increased

surface disturbance and risk of accelerated erosion from additional roads and power transmission

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 647

corridors associated with such development. The difference in impacts among the alternatives is

less substantial when the analysis is limited to areas with potential for commercial wind-energy

development. All permitted activities in excess of 1 acre are required to comply with the

Wyoming storm water management program, which would help limit adverse impacts to soil

resources from surface disturbance.

Alternative D ROW management is similar to Alternative C, although Alternative D designates

fewer corridors, has narrower corridor widths, and limits the number of aboveground corridors.

Designating corridors would beneficially impact soils, and therefore water resources, because

designation would increase the likelihood that ROWs would be co-located. Like Alternative

B, Alternative D limits ROWs outside of corridors, but not as extensively as Alternative B.

Alternative B would result in more beneficial impacts than any of the other alternatives because

it closes areas not designated as corridors to major ROWs; all other alternatives consider

authorizing ROWs outside designated corridors, although Alternative D avoids more areas for

ROWs than either Alternative A or C and applies avoidance criteria. Alternative D results in

beneficial impacts to soil resources (and therefore water quality) similar to Alternative B, but

less beneficial. For those major ROWs considered outside of the designated ROW corridors,

Alternative D puts the burden of justifying new locations on the ROW proponent; this could limit

new surface disturbance. The Required Design Features could further limit adverse impacts to

soils and water quality, but less than closing those areas.

Alternative D is similar to the other alternatives in authorizing livestock grazing in approximately

97 percent of the planning area. Alternative D does not identify set utilization levels, but would

make that determination on a site-specific basis during permit renewals. Higher utilization can

lead to greater adverse impacts to the plant community because it would increase soil compaction

in livestock concentration areas, and accelerate erosion from the removal of vegetation below

the threshold at which a particular ecological site would experience adverse impacts. Required

Design Features could reduce the adverse impacts to soil from range infrastructure, but less than

under Alternative B. However, short-term benefits to riparian-wetland resources, and therefore

soil and water, resulting from exclosure fences will be more beneficial if those fences do not

increase livestock trailing and resulting loss of vegetation, or increase use of uplands that are

generally less used than riparian-wetland vegetation.

Alternative D uses salt and mineral supplements for livestock similar to Alternative B, and

would result in fewer adverse impacts to soil resources than alternatives A and C. Alternative

D allows the use of structural projects to make progress toward PFC and Wyoming Standards

for Healthy Rangelands only pursuant to a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy. This would result

in beneficial impacts to soil resources by avoiding surface disturbance associated with range

improvement projects and limiting livestock concentration areas. Alternative D riparian-wetlands

management provides for more flexibility than Alternative C; if properly applied, this would

yield the most expedient results in riparian-wetlands improvement. However, project work is

expensive, planning typically requires more than 2 years, monitoring and repair of structures are

more intensive than passive management, and funds for such improvements are not always

available, especially because current BLM budget projections call for decreasing budgets for

the next several years. While improved riparian-wetland health can benefit soil resources,

livestock concentration areas associated with range developments would adversely impact soil

and therefore water quality. These impacts could exceed the beneficial impacts to soils from

riparian-wetland improvement. If livestock grazing is reduced over time based on monitoring and

health assessments, the reductions would decrease nonpoint source pollution.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Soil
648 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Roads and trails are prime locations for soil compaction and accelerated erosion, and the fewer

acres open to traffic, the less chance for damage to soil resources. Alternative D closes the second

most acres to motorized travel so is the second most beneficial to soil resources. Alternatives

B and D both treat over-snow vehicle use in areas with less than 12 inches of snow coverage

the same as any other motorized vehicle use, and limit travel to existing or designated roads.

This management would protect vegetation and soil resources, and would result in substantial

beneficial impacts in compared to alternatives A and C. The Required Design Features for roads

are likely to reduce the number of roads over time and therefore reduce the adverse impacts

to water quality associated with road development and use. The Required Design Features

for reclaiming decommissioned roads would beneficially impact water quality by increasing

infiltration, reducing erosion along roads, reducing pollution associated with motorized use, and

increasing vegetation which, in turn, would beneficially impact soils. As travel management

planning is implemented, the number of roads with related adverse impacts to soils is likely to

decrease, but only slowly. Improvements made by the Required Design Features reclamation

practices will slowly impact soil resources in a beneficial way.

4.1.3.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative D management of Congressionally Designated Trails in the National Trails

Management Corridor (NTMC) would result in more beneficial impacts to soil resources than

Alternative A, substantially more than Alternative C, but substantially less than Alternative B,

because Alternative B has fewer limits on surface disturbance. However, the actual number of

acres protected from surface disturbance under any alternative is difficult to calculate because

closure depends on visual resource management (VRM) considerations such as distance from

the trails and topography.

Alternative D WSR management would be moderately less beneficial to soils than management

under Alternative A by limiting surface disturbance in much less area. However, some of the

protected waterways under alternatives A and B are in ACECs, such as the Lander Slope, or a

WSA under Alternative D, so adverse impacts to soils, even in the areas around unprotected

waterways are likely to be minimal.

Alternative D designates fewer acres of ACECs than Alternative B, with surface disturbance

limitations (including a Plan of Operations) as part of the protection of ACEC values. However,

the extent to which lands are withdrawn from locatable mineral entry to protect other values

(including the ruts and swales of the National Historic Trails [NHTs]), reduces the differences

from Alternative B. These measures under Alternative D would decrease the likelihood of adverse

impacts to soil resources due to surface-disturbing activities and INNS over the short and long

terms, followed by Alternative A; Alternative C affords no similar protections.

4.1.4. Water

This section analyzes impacts to surface water and groundwater quality and quantity from

management actions under the alternatives. There is considerable overlap between surface water

and groundwater, and adverse impacts to one would likely have a similar impact on the other,

although to a different degree. In addition, there is a relationship between soil and vegetation

resources and water quality, because removing vegetation or otherwise disturbing soil increases

the likelihood of adverse impacts to water resources.

Surface Water Quality

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 649

Adverse impacts to water quality are those that would result in a violation of water quality

standard (e.g., not meeting drinking water standards), or degrade a designated beneficial use (e.g.,

suitability for game fish). Management that allows surface-disturbing activities that contribute to

erosion, and therefore sediment delivery to water, would result in adverse impacts. Beneficial

impacts to surface water quality result from management actions that directly improve water

quality or that minimize, reduce, or prevent sediment flow into water. Other beneficial impacts to

water quality result from management that limits the discharge of lower-quality water (e.g., water

produced during minerals activities that has higher solids or salts) than the receiving water, or the

discharge of water that degrades riparian-wetland and recharge areas. For example, management

actions that stabilize watersheds or improve degraded portions of watersheds beneficially impact

surface water quality. Therefore, the more an alternative limits surface disturbance that would

result in adverse sedimentation or limits the release of lower quality water, the more beneficial

the impacts to water quality.

Direct adverse impacts to surface water quality result from actions that degrade the quality of

surface waters. For example, management actions that modify drainages, such as altering the

number of linear water crossings or the distribution and condition of riparian-wetland areas, result

in direct adverse impacts to surface water quality.

Indirect impacts result from actions that disturb soil and vegetation in a watershed, especially

highly erodible soil, because this leads to increased sedimentation of the water.

Long-term impacts to surface water quality are those that result from bare soil that continues to

erode because it is not revegetated within 5 years or because established point discharges (such as

the surface release of produced water) are not expected to stop in 5 years. Short-term impacts

include exceedance of state water quality standards that are mitigated or stopped within required

timeframes, or surface disturbances that temporarily affect water quality and are reclaimed

immediately after a temporary use.

Fire suppression and rehabilitation activities can impact water resources over the short and

long terms. Activities such as firebreak construction, clearing vegetation, and the use of heavy

equipment would disturb the soil surface and increase erosion and sediment production over the

short term. For example, fire lines constructed during suppression efforts can channelize surface

runoff, which can result in gully erosion. Over the long term, however, successful stabilization

efforts can increase cover and result in a subsequent reduction in erosion and sediment production

to natural rates.

Surface Water Quantity

Impacts to surface water quantity result from management actions that reduce or supplement

streamflows, and can be either beneficial or adverse, depending on the quantity and the location of

the withdrawal(s) and discharge(s).

Direct impacts to surface water quantity result from management actions (e.g., vegetative and

physical treatments, impoundments, and retention and detention structures) that increase or

decrease runoff, and from changes in the quantity of water discharged into the system.

Indirect impacts to surface water quantity result from management that modifies the capacity

of stream channels or changes the amount of water reaching the stream system. For example,

changes in the locations of roads that direct surface water runoff into drainages can increase or

decrease the timing and amount of surface water flowing in the stream system. The distribution

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water
650 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and condition of riparian-wetland areas would indirectly result in changes to surface water

quantity because they increase infiltration and delay peak flows. Where surface water and

groundwater are interconnected, short-term direct impacts can occur where localized withdrawals

cause a lowering of the water table. The intensity of impact would be a direct result of the

intensity of withdrawal. Compounding drought conditions could further the extent of the impact

with resultant decreases in baseflow volumes.

Long-term impacts to surface water quantity are those that result from actions that alter

the amount of impervious surface in a drainage or change established discharges that alter

supplemental streamflows (more than 5 years) through either extensive groundwater withdrawals

or sustained drought conditions. Short-term impacts result from uses that temporarily affect water

quantity, such as temporary impoundments or detention structures.

Although there are small differences among the alternatives regarding acres available for land

tenure adjustments, direct impacts to surface water quality under any alternative would be

negligible, and are not further addressed in this section. See the Soil section for potential impacts

to soil resources, and therefore water quality.

Groundwater Quality and Quantity

Direct impacts to groundwater quality and quantity result from changes in the number of wells

drilled in a given area, including domestic or municipal water supply wells, oil and gas wells,

and water disposal or injection wells. These direct impacts can occur either through consumptive

uses that exceed water supply, localized lowering of the water table, and/or through direct

contamination by materials used to drill and or complete said wells. Contaminates can be

introduced through improper well construction and/or lack of maintenance. Additionally, where

proposed drilling zones intersect zones being used as a water source, additional precautions

should be taken including but not limited to the use of non-toxic drilling and/or stimulation fluids.

Other factors to consider include the numbers and locations of springs developed, whether there

are water conservation efforts in an area, and the amount of water infiltration and recharge.

Indirect impacts to groundwater quality and quantity result from activities that modify recharge

areas related to a groundwater system(s). For example, activities that decrease vegetative cover or

increase runoff can reduce infiltration of precipitation, thereby reducing recharge to groundwater

aquifers.

Short‐term impacts to groundwater can result from any temporary or short-term use of

groundwater (e.g., temporary use of a well to supply water for drilling an exploratory gas well

allotment). Long‐term impacts to groundwater quality and quantity can result from permanent oil

and gas fields and production facilities being constructed in recharge areas, or from landscape

alterations that modify the areal extent of groundwater recharge zones. Such impacts can include

wells that deplete an aquifer through extraction of water, paved surfaces and compacted soils that

decrease water infiltration, or wells used to inject water of similar quality (disposal wells) into

the aquifer. Actions that increase permeability, such as reclaiming disturbed areas and removing

redundant roads, result in long-term beneficial impacts to groundwater quantity and, possibly,

quality.

The primary BLM management action that impacts water quantity is minerals development.

Oil and gas development and locatable minerals activity use large volumes of water and

produce groundwater as an ancillary by-product of mineral activities. The amounts, locations,

and quality of water produced varies from site to site, and often is known only after activities

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 651

begin. Most produced water is generally not of a quality that it can be reused for consumption

without treatment. As such, most produced water is considered “consumed” and not available

for beneficial use; however, recycling of produced water for additional drilling related uses

is encouraged.

For example, in situ leach recovery of uranium intentionally uses a “bleed off” of a percentage of

groundwater to maintain the pressure necessary to recover the uranium. The impacts of these

management actions cannot be identified on a planning area-wide basis and need to be analyzed in

a site-specific NEPA document. Impacts to groundwater quantity from minerals activities under

the alternatives are not further analyzed other than to state that as minerals development increases

in intensity and extent, the potential for adverse impacts to groundwater quantity and quality,

including potentially connected impacts to surface water quality and quantity increase. The BLM

does not anticipate that there would be any impacts associated with water consumption and/or

produced water except on a site-specific basis.

4.1.4.1. Summary of Impacts

Impacts to surface water and groundwater quality would directly relate to the amount of surface

disturbance allowed under an alternative if it is assumed that each discrete action creates its

own surface disturbance (i.e., actions would not be co-located as in the case of multi-well pad

drilling). Using the amount of surface disturbance as the metric, Alternative B would result in

the fewest adverse impacts to and greatest protections for water resources. Management actions

under this alternative would result in the least amount of projected surface disturbance and most

restrictions on resource uses, and therefore the least amount of potential impact to surface water

and groundwater quality and quantity. Conversely, based on anticipated surface disturbance

alone, Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impacts to water resources. Alternative

C manages surface disturbance more like Alternative A than like Alternative B. Alternative D

would result in beneficial impacts much more like Alternative B than like Alternative A.

All alternatives would result in the same level of water consumption impacts as they relate to

mineral related activities, although impacts would be localized and addressed at the project

or site-specific stage.

4.1.4.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Actions that disturb soils, particularly soils most susceptible to erosion, are the most likely to

create dust or deliver sediment to waterbodies and adversely impact surface water. Erosion

contributes to sedimentation if the sediment is delivered to the surface water drainage system

either as fugitive dust or carried by surface water. The amount carried by surface water is

limited by the effectiveness of storm water discharge practices and the buffering capacity of

the land over which the water flows before reaching drainage.

● The extent of unsurfaced roads (i.e., those without gravel or any other added surface material)

and the degree of usage is an indicator of the quantity of sediment delivery that could impact

surface water quality within each watershed (Furniss et al. 2000). The alternatives vary

substantially in the number and types of ROWs likely to be authorized and the amount

of traffic likely to be generated by authorized activities. Therefore, to the extent that an

alternative limits resource uses, such as closing an area to oil and gas development or reducing

areas open to motorized travel, it would involve fewer unsurfaced roads and avoid traffic from

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water
652 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

oil and gas operations over unsurfaced roads. Therefore, reduced resource use is an indicator

of beneficial impacts to water quality.

● All alternatives employ various methods to minimize adverse impacts to water quality. BMPs,

watershed enhancement projects, conservation practices, Storm Water Discharge Plans, Weed

Management Area Plans, project-specific soil investigations, and reclamation plans are

designed to reduce impacts to soil and vegetation, which in turn protects water resources

by reducing runoff and sediment yield. Limiting motorized vehicle use to existing roads

and trails would prevent route proliferation and vegetation removal, which could decrease

erosion. In addition, management actions that restore plant communities would enhance water

resources by restoring infiltration, organic matter content, and productivity, and by reducing

erosion and the generation of sediment. Impacts from surface-disturbing and disruptive

activities are mitigated through the application of the Wyoming BLM Standard Mitigation

Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (Appendix M (p. 1595)).

● Substantial disturbance to soil, including compaction or changes in vegetative cover, increases

water runoff and downstream sediment loads and lowers soil productivity, thereby degrading

water quality, channel structure, and overall watershed health. The degree of impact attributed

to any one disturbance or series of disturbances is influenced by several factors, including

location within the watershed, time and degree of disturbance, existing vegetation, and

precipitation. Only a site-specific analysis can address these potential impacts to water.

● Changes in channel geometry due to surface-disturbing activities would be likely to

adversely impact water quality. Sediment in channels is necessary for maintaining channel

geomorphology and building riparian-wetland systems. Most channel systems achieve a

channel form in equilibrium to the water and sediment being naturally supplied to it, and

generally respond to changes in sediment loads or streamflows by changing the channel form.

● Actions that protect soil and vegetation resources will generally mitigate or prevent adverse

impacts to water resources as well.

● As the local population expands in the planning area, new disturbances related to OHV use

will likely continue, with adverse impacts to soil and vegetation resources and water quality.

● Surface-disturbing and other activities are most likely to adversely impact the parts of the

planning area where depths to groundwater are less than 100 feet or where the proposed action

would occur within an aquifer containing potable water zones. In general, the shallower the

water, the more sensitive an aquifer is to contamination (Wyoming Geographic Information

Science Center 2003).

● Changes in surface water quality, such as increases in pollutants or physical parameters (e.g.,

temperature), can degrade habitat used by aquatic life and can affect other designated uses

(e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, and drinking water supplies).

● Changes in surface water quantity, such as a lowering of the water table and resultant

baseflows, can degrade habitat used by aquatic life and can affect other designated uses (e.g.,

livestock watering, irrigation, and drinking water supplies).

● BLM Wyoming state office policy requires the BLM to ensure that surface-disturbing

activities comply with the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm

Water Discharge provisions as administered by the Wyoming DEQ. This program is designed

to hold soil on construction and industrial sites and keep it from running offsite as sediment

and causing adverse impacts to water quality. This CWA program will be complied with

for all Wyoming DEQ-regulated surface disturbances; at present, this applies to all surface

disturbances of 1 or more acre.

● Potential surface water and groundwater quality impairments are identified through inventories

and routine monitoring activities and reported to the Wyoming DEQ, the regulatory agency

that enforces the CWA and state water quality statutes. Monitoring is required by the BLM

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 653

and conducted by the permit holder. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates CWA

section 404 provisions regarding riparian-wetland disturbance and channel modifications to

waters of the United States. The EPA regulates drinking water quality in the state.

● All alternatives require inventory and condition assessment of reservoirs on BLM-administered

lands in the planning area. Functionally compromised reservoirs will be repaired or reclaimed.

● The Lander Field Office will develop and implement watershed management plans as

necessary and cooperate with ongoing watershed management initiatives of other stakeholders.

● The BLM manages water quality to meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, which

protect and improve rangeland health, including water resources. Wyoming Standards for

Healthy Rangelands are applied to all activities, not just livestock grazing.

● The acreage in the planning area managed as WSAs (55,338 acres) is the same under all

alternatives, and all alternatives prohibit surface-disturbing activities in WSAs; this prevents

adverse impacts to water resources in WSAs.

● Management actions that protect or enhance water resources, regardless of alternative, include

but are not limited to, implementing BMPs for erosion and sediment control; employing

watershed improvement and conservation practices; timely restoration of healthy plant

communities and vegetative cover after surface disturbance; managing water resources to meet

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands; achieving PFC and meeting state water quality

standards; and participating with the Wyoming DEQ in the development and implementation

of watershed management plans or total maximum daily load (TMDL) allocation plans.

4.1.4.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.1.4.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts to Surface Water Quality

Surface water quality on BLM-administered surface lands and federal mineral estate could

degrade under each alternative from activities proposed across a variety of resource programs.

Impacts to water quality associated with these disturbances are projected to occur under each

alternative, although the intensity of the impacts would vary across alternatives. Appendix

T (p. 1641) lists projected surface disturbance by alternative during the planning period.

No long-term surface disturbance or associated erosion is anticipated from prescribed fire,

chemical treatments, or mechanical fuels treatments following reclamation. Fuels management

could result in short-term adverse impacts and long-term beneficial impacts to water quality.

Wildland fire in the planning area can impact water quality over the short term by removing

vegetation and exposing soils to water and wind erosion, thereby generating sediment. Under

certain conditions, hot fires can create hydrophobic soil conditions (i.e., resistance to water

infiltration), whereby runoff and erosion increase; see the Soil section. Over the long term, if

provided vegetative recovery is successful, fire can beneficially impact water quality by improving

land health, reducing erosion and sediment contribution, and lowering the risk of landscape-level

fire. The impacts of fighting wildland fires and the use of wildland fire to restore fire-adapted

ecosystems or reduce hazardous fuels varies by alternative. On a planning-level scale, it is not

possible to analyze impacts to water resources under individual alternatives because of the

unpredictable nature of wildland fire and the contributions of weather, disease, and climate change.

Under all alternatives, surface-disturbing vegetative treatment projects to achieve management

goals would result in short-term increases in erosion and potential sediment generation; however,

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water
654 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

these adverse impacts would be ameliorated over the long term as vegetation reestablishes on

treated sites.

All alternatives manage riparian-wetland areas to meet or exceed PFC and Wyoming Standards for

Healthy Rangelands. This could involve rest or deferment from grazing pressure, fencing projects,

structural in-stream projects, or any combination of thereof. Fencing and in-stream structural

placement would necessarily involve short-term water quality degradation, but over the long term,

water quality would return to meet or exceed that required to meet the designated beneficial uses.

INNS that form monoculture stands, such as leafy spurge and Russian knapweed, can exacerbate

erosion by reducing vegetative cover, with resulting adverse impacts to water resources. The same

is true of infestations of annual INNS species like cheatgrass and halogeton. The presence of

INNS can alter natural fire regimes and increase fire frequency, which would lead to accelerated

soil erosion and result in sediment deposition to waterbodies. Some annual INNS can result in a

short-term beneficial impact because they can serve as a nurse crop to give a limited degree of

erosion protection and sediment control while species planted for reclamation establish.

When watersheds lack vegetation, surface infiltration into the soil decreases, causing more runoff

to reach stream systems. As surface disturbance increases, so does the amount of bare soil,

compacted soils, and possibly less-pervious areas in a watershed. Therefore, more surface water

runoff reaches streams in a shorter period, which increases the potential for sedimentation

and the frequency of flooding or erosive velocities from high flows in channels. Conversely,

activities such as reclamation would improve vegetative cover and would beneficially impact

water resources. Healthy vegetative cover increases infiltration of surface water flows, filters out

sediment before it reaches drainages, reduces runoff, and lowers peak flows in the surface water

system. Prescribed fire reduces vegetative cover and increases sedimentation over the short term,

but restoring fire-adapted ecosystems increases vegetative cover and decreases the potential for

large landscape-level fires over the long term. Concentrated grazing by livestock, wild horses,

and wildlife can contribute to soil compaction and damage the vegetative cover and soil crust,

therefore increasing surface water runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Produced water from

oil and gas wells is sometimes discharged to surface waters, thereby contributing to surface

water flows. Beneficial impacts from produced water discharges include increased availability of

surface water; however, there can be adverse impacts from altering natural flow regimes, such as

increased channel erosion, which would offset beneficial impacts.

Impacts to water resources from wild horses would be similar to those described in the Soil section.

Under all alternatives, approximately 97 percent of the planning area is open to livestock grazing.

Properly managed livestock grazing at appropriate stocking levels can have a neutral to beneficial

impact on vegetation and soil resources, and therefore water resources. These impacts are

measurable only on a site-specific basis. The alternatives vary in how rangeland health standards

and PFC will be achieved through managing livestock grazing. These differences are analyzed

below by alternative.

The acreage of WSAs (55,338 acres) is the same under all alternatives, and all alternatives

prohibit surface-disturbing activities in those areas. While travel management in WSAs varies by

alternative, the differences in impacts to water resources is too small to analyze.

All alternatives include actions that restrict surface disturbance, which is generally considered

to beneficially impact water resources. For example, withdrawals that close areas to

surface-disturbing activities or requirements for construction, operation, monitoring, and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 655

rehabilitation planning before surface-disturbing activities are initiated would, at a minimum,

reduce the potential for adverse impacts to water resources from surface-disturbing activities.

Surface-disturbing activities associated with realty and minerals development expose soils to

increased erosion and increased rates and volumes of runoff over the short and long terms. For

the projected acres of disturbance under Alternative A, see Appendix T (p. 1641). Increases in

surface disturbance related to lands actions and minerals development can be expected to result in

a proportionate increase in adverse impacts to water resources. See the Soil section for acres of

surface disturbance from mineral and realty actions under Alternative A.

Although the sale of forest products is considered unlikely, BMPs to reduce adverse impacts to all

resources, but particularly surface water, would be evaluated and appropriate provisions would

be applied as Conditions of Approval (COA) on the sale authorization under all alternatives.

See Appendix H (p. 1521).

Impacts to Surface Water Quantity

Management of forest product sales primarily results in impacts to soil resources, and secondarily

to water resources. As discussed in the Soil section, while each alternative includes different

management actions for forest product sales (also see Chapter 2), impacts are not expected to vary

by alternative because of the depressed demand for forest products in the planning area. Cutting

of forest products can result in short-term and potentially long-term adverse impacts to water

resources by removing vegetation and increasing erosion and surface disturbance. However, the

BLM has not identified any reasonably foreseeable demand for substantial quantities of forest

products, so impacts to water resources from management of forest product sales are not analyzed.

Impacts to Groundwater Quality and Quantity

Groundwater contamination can come from point sources, such as chemical spills, chemical

storage tanks (aboveground and underground), industrial sites, landfills, household septic tanks,

oil and gas well sites, oil and gas detention and retention ponds, and mining activities. Of solid

minerals mining activities potentially impacting groundwater in the planning area, the legacy of

past uranium mining and the potential of future in situ recovery (ISR) operations have the greatest

potential to impact groundwater quality (e.g., produced-water bleed, leakage past approved

areas, acid pit lakes, and contaminated plumes from tailings ponds). Other possible sources of

groundwater contamination are nonpoint sources such as roadways and agricultural activities.

Groundwater quality is most susceptible to pollution where the aquifer is shallow (within 100 feet

of the surface), very permeable, or connected directly to a surface water system, such as river

gravels. Potential impacts on groundwater resources from fluid mineral extraction activities could

include the five following scenarios:

● Contamination of aquifers during drilling through the introduction of drilling fluids.

● Extended fracture growth allowing fracking fluid migration into source water zones or

drinking water supplies.

● Cross-contamination of aquifers from the introduction of drilling fluids into one aquifer that

travels upward into shallower units due to improperly sealed well casings.

● Localized depletion of unconfined groundwater availability.

● Progressive contamination of deep confined, shallow confined, and unconfined aquifers if the

deep confined aquifers are not completely cased off from deeper units.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water
656 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The application of BMPs as Required Design Features and compliance with federal rules and

regulations are adequate to minimize adverse impacts from these activities.

The production of water from oil and gas wells would have the greatest potential to impact

groundwater quality and quantity where the wells are producing from zones containing aquifers

which are used as a source of freshwater (e.g., Wind River Formation).

4.1.4.3.2. Alternative A

4.1.4.3.2.1. Program Management

Alternative A prohibits or avoids surface-disturbing activities in groundwater recharge areas to

prevent contamination on a case-by-case basis. Alternative A manages minerals and realty actions

in these areas with standard stipulations. Pesticide use in aquifer recharge areas under Alternative

A is the same as that specified on the legal pesticide label use restrictions.

Alternative A manages permanent facilities in floodplains and riparian-wetlands with moderate

restrictions, except to benefit watershed health or vegetation, and considers linear water crossings

on a case-by-case basis. This management would result in beneficial impacts to water resources.

4.1.4.3.2.2. Resources

Alternative A air quality and soils management would result in moderate beneficial impacts

to water quality because it applies only statewide standard restrictions to surface-disturbing

activities. Alternative A authorizes surface-disturbing activities in LRP areas with mitigation on a

project-by-project basis using a detailed site analysis and reclamation objectives. This would

benefit water quality and quantity. Alternative A also avoids surface disturbance of LRP soils

whenever possible. To the extent that LRP soils are avoided, adverse impacts to water quality

would be avoided. Similarly, the provisions of the Wyoming Stormwater Discharge program will

help avoid adverse impacts to water resources from accelerated erosion and sediment loading.

All of these management measures designed to forestall accelerated erosion and soil compaction

would beneficially impact water resources by keeping sediment levels and runoff to natural levels.

There are no special management prescriptions for lands with wilderness characteristics under

Alternative A.

Alternative A uses full suppression of fire and allows soil disturbance associated with suppression

activities on a case-by-case basis. See above under Impacts Common to All Alternatives for

impacts to water quality and quantity based on some fire suppression.

Alternative A manages activities likely to spread INNS on a case-by-case basis. Impacts to

resources attributed to INNS are addressed above under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

Alternative A prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of surface water and

riparian-wetlands unless the activities are necessary and their impacts can be mitigated. This

buffer would protect water resources from both short- and long-term adverse impacts.

Alternative A management actions designed to protect wildlife and special status species habitat

from the impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities also would protect water resources

from the adverse impacts associated with these activities. See Appendix T (p. 1641) for acres

of projected surface disturbance. Management prescriptions under Alternative A designed to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 657

protect cultural, paleontological, and visual resources from the impacts of surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities also would protect water resources.

4.1.4.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative A, projected acres of disturbance from locatable minerals, leasable minerals,

and mineral materials disposal management are listed in Appendix T (p. 1641). There would be

a commensurate potential to adversely impact water quality and possibly water quantity to the

extent that produced water is depleted. Impacts to water quality from ROWs, including industrial

wind-energy development, would be secondary to impacts to vegetation and soils. See the Soil

section. Alternative A considers oil and gas leasing in the area along the east side of Boysen

Reservoir on a case-by-case basis, which could adversely impact water quality.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative A provides for protection or enhancement of

other resource values, which would beneficially impact water resources. Alternative A prohibits

the placement of salt or mineral supplements within 1⁄4 mile of water, riparian-wetland areas,

and reclaimed or reforested areas, which would reduce vegetation removal, soil compaction,

and sediment production from concentrated livestock grazing and traffic. Alternative A allows

rangeland improvement projects on a case-by-case basis; see analysis in the Soil section.

Revegetation would usually occur within several growing seasons, and long-term erosion

rates and sediment production should return to normal as upland sites farther from water are

reclaimed to an appropriate percent of ground cover that would be expected for the historic

plant community for a given site. However, unprotected water source developments subjected

to improper livestock grazing management would typically become livestock concentration

areas denuded of vegetation and subject to accelerated erosion rates and generation of sediment.

Soil compaction, reduced infiltration, increased surface runoff, trail formation, and sediment

generation can occur in these upland to wet lowland (or water development) transition zones.

In addition, livestock concentration can compound the localized degradation of water resources

usually found near uncontrolled water sources by channeling upland runoff in the transition

zones down to the lowlands.

On a case-by-case basis, Alternative A uses the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands

systematic assessment approach and PFC data to identify riparian-wetland areas that need

improvement. Alternative A employs a variety of measures and passive and active (constructed

projects) management to stop accelerated erosion and sediment production and restore long-term

health and productivity to surface waters. These measures include fenced riparian-wetland

exclosures and pastures, short-term rest from grazing, and grazing strategies favorable to

riparian-wetland enhancement. Adverse impacts from range development projects can involve

short-term accelerated erosion and sediment contribution from fence installation or livestock hoof

action, but these impacts are expected to disappear over the long term and lead to improved

conditions in riparian-wetlands. There could be long-term adverse impacts to water quality from

areas denuded of vegetation and the resulting accelerated erosion.

Alternative A travel management would beneficially impact soils and vegetation, and therefore

water resources by limiting travel to existing or designated roads and trails and prohibiting

cross-country travel. In addition, Alternative A closes 5,923 acres to motorized travel; seasonally

closes 111,002 acres to motorized travel; limits motorized travel to designated roads and trails on

163,075 acres, and closes over-snow vehicle use on 14,729 acres. As discussed under Impacts

Common to All Alternatives, limiting travel management either seasonally or entirely beneficially

impacts water resources by beneficially impacting soil and vegetation resources. Alternative A

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water
658 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

does not require a minimum snow cover for cross-country travel, which could result in adverse

impacts to soil and vegetation, and therefore water resources from over-snow vehicle use if

there is not sufficient snow cover.

Recreation-related adverse impacts to water resources can take the form of soil compaction, soil

particle detachment, dust evolution, and increased vulnerability to water and wind erosion from

authorized large-group activities, the repeated use of undeveloped campsites, and cross-country

mechanized travel.

4.1.4.3.2.4. Special Designations

Congressionally Designated Trails management under Alternative A protects 1⁄4 mile on each side

of the NHTs from surface disturbance, and in some cases, a slightly greater distance. To the extent

there are water resources in or near this buffer, the buffer would benefit the water resources by

limiting erosion and sedimentation.

Alternative A limits motorized travel in all eight WSAs to designated roads and trails, except in

the Dubois Badlands WSA, which the alternative closes to motorized travel. This management

would have a minor beneficial impact to water quality in those areas.

Alternative A also manages nine waterways as eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS for their

ORVs by restricting surface disturbance within 1⁄4 mile of the waters, This would benefit water

resources by limiting erosion and sedimentation in those areas.

Alternative A places moderate constraints on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities on

119,622 acres in ACECs where surface disturbance is minimized and where Plans of Operation

are required for minerals development. The existing ACECs designated under Alternative A

moderately restrict surface-disturbing activities, except in ACECs avoided for major ROWs,

which would beneficially impact water resources.

4.1.4.3.3. Alternative B

4.1.4.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B limits more surface disturbance than Alternative A, and avoids surface-disturbing

and disruptive activities in sole-source aquifers and groundwater recharge areas. Mineral and

realty actions in areas underlain by an identified sole-source aquifer are managed with moderate

restrictions. Alternative B also prohibits pesticide use in identified aquifer recharge areas and

any areas underlain by a sole-source aquifer or wellhead protection area. Alternative B would

better protect groundwater recharge areas against accidental contamination. Alternative B

implements management actions on a watershed basis to prevent degradation of surface water

and groundwater and to improve water quality, using existing watershed plans where possible.

In general, Alternative B water management is more protective of water quality and quantity

than Alternative A.

4.1.4.3.3.2. Resources

Management actions under Alternative B designed to prohibit, avoid, or mitigate soil erosion

also would beneficially impact water resources by eliminating sediment production and delivery

that would result from authorized surface-disturbing activities capable of causing accelerated soil

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 659

erosion. See the analysis in the Soil section. Alternative B would result in more beneficial impacts

to water resources than Alternative A, particularly related to disturbance in LRP soils and limiting

disturbance on slopes less than 15 percent.

Alternative B manages 5,490 acres in the Little Red Creek Complex near Dubois as non-WSA

lands with wilderness characteristics and closes these areas to motorized and mechanized travel.

This would beneficially impact water resources by protecting them from erosion and runoff due to

surface-disturbing activities. Alternative A does not include special management for these lands.

Alternative B proactively manages INNS and would likely be more successful in controlling

the spread of INNS; see the Soil section. Impacts to water resources attributed to INNS are

described above under Impacts Common to All Alternatives and in the Invasive Species and Pest

Management section of this chapter. Alternative B will better limit the introduction and spread

of INNS and therefore be more likely to prevent the spread and adverse impacts associated

with INNS (e.g., accelerated erosion and increased runoff and sediment generation). However,

limitations on pesticide use under Alternative B might be less effective in controlling INNS

near water recharge areas and sole-source aquifers than Alternative A, which does not include

that restriction.

Alternative B prohibits permanent facilities in floodplains and riparian-wetlands, which would

result in more beneficial impacts to water resources than Alternative A, which only avoids

those areas. This wide buffer and moderate restrictions on surface use would protect water

resources from surface disturbance and the resulting sediment generation. As previously stated,

alternatives involving the least amount of surface disturbance would be expected to indirectly

benefit the control of accelerated erosion; Alternative B includes many more acres of protection

for riparian-wetlands and transition zones than Alternative A.

Management actions under Alternative B designed to protect wildlife and special status species

habitat from the impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities also would protect water

resources from impacts associated with these activities. Alternative B limits substantially more

surface disturbance than Alternative A, including closing greater sage-grouse Core Area to oil and

gas leasing, limiting surface disturbance within 0.6 mile of leks, and applying timing restrictions

that would have the effect of protecting soil and therefore water during vulnerable times; see the

Soil section. Less surface disturbance means fewer adverse impacts to soil, vegetation, and water

resources. Alternative B management would systematically inventory and close unnecessary

roads and trails and prescribe rehabilitation for them, which would help control runoff and

sediment. Comparatively, Alternative A, on a case-by-case basis, closes and reclaims unnecessary

roads and old mineral exploration trails, which would result in fewer beneficial impacts to water

resources. The difference in beneficial impacts would depend on reclaiming roads that contribute

to erosion and sedimentation of waters.

Alternative B includes the construction and upgrade of a wild-horse viewing loop road.

Short-term adverse impacts to vegetation, soil, and water resources would include increased

erosion in the area of construction, but as cut-and-fill slopes are rehabilitated, long-term impacts

from erosion and sediment should be negligible. Alternative A does not include wild-horse

viewing road designation or construction, but would result in the use of unimproved roads for

horse viewing, which also would adversely impact soil and water resources.

Management prescriptions under Alternative B designed to protect cultural, paleontological, and

visual resources from the impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities also would

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water
660 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

protect water resources. Generally, this alternative would provide more secondary protections to

water resources than Alternative A.

4.1.4.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Surface-disturbing activities associated with minerals development expose soils to increased

erosion and sediment generation over the short and long terms. For projected acres of disturbance

under Alternative B, see Appendix T (p. 1641). Alternative B decreases the amount and severity

of surface disturbance related to mineral development (leasable minerals, locatable minerals,

mineral materials disposals, and geothermal leasing) substantially compared to Alternative A.

Therefore, Alternative B would be expected to result in a proportionate decrease in risk of adverse

impacts to water quality.

Alternative B management limits acres open to oil and gas and locatable mineral entry, which

would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to water quantity compared to Alternative A,

particularly in the area on the west side of Boysen Reservoir.

Industrial wind-energy development and ROWs result in surface disturbance, with the potential

for adverse impacts to water quality. Alternative B opens substantially less acreage for industrial

wind-energy development and ROWs than Alternative A, and manages more area as ROW

avoidance and exclusion areas. Alternative B limits new ROWs to designated corridors and

co-locates them with existing disturbance. The reduction in surface disturbance under Alternative

B would likely result in fewer adverse impacts to water resources than Alternative A; see the

Soil section for additional analysis.

Alternative B livestock grazing management provides for more protection or enhancement

of other resource values than Alternative A; this would beneficially impact water resources.

Alternative B prohibits the placement of salt or mineral supplements over a larger area than

Alternative A; these provisions would reduce vegetation removal, soil compaction, runoff, and

the risk of accelerated erosion from concentrated livestock grazing and traffic and the resulting

adverse impacts to water resources.

This alternative emphasizes the use of non-structural grazing management to achieve or

maintain Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Alternative B does not allow new range

improvements if they would result in adverse impacts to other resources. The establishment of

forage reserves, as opportunities arise, is also provided for under this alternative. This approach

should result in the fewest adverse impacts to water resources from range improvement project

construction over the short and long terms. Alternative B low to moderate forage utilization would

be more beneficial to water resources than management under Alternative A, which establishes

forage utilization levels for livestock grazing on a case-by-case basis. However, improvements

in riparian-wetland areas could be slower under Alternative B, and therefore take longer to

beneficially impact water quality because riparian-wetland exclosure fences would not be used.

Because range improvement projects would not be used for infrastructure, projects that would

directly benefit water resources, such as improvements to riparian-wetland areas or vegetative

treatments to eliminate heavy water users such as Russian olive, would be implemented.

With more restrictive travel, there would be less surface disturbance and fewer adverse impacts

from accelerated erosion and runoff under Alternative B than under Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 661

4.1.4.3.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative B limits surface disturbance in a much larger buffer around Congressionally

Designated Trails than Alternative A and, to the extent that water resources are in or near this

buffer or would be receiving waters for erosion associated with surface disturbance, this larger

buffer would beneficially impact water quality.

Unlike Alternative A, Alternative B closes all WSAs to motorized and mechanized travel. This

would minimize soil erosion and runoff in these areas and beneficially impact water resources.

Alternative B manages all NWSRS-eligible waterway segments as suitable for inclusion in

the NWSRS. This management would result in similar beneficial impacts to water quality as

Alternative A, because of similar limitations on surface disturbance.

Alternative B designates 1,492,990 acres as ACECs (approximately 12.4 times the acres under

Alternative A) and places very restrictive constraints on surface-disturbing activities in the

ACECs. This would result in more beneficial impacts to water resources than the more moderate

restraints under Alternative A. All of the ACECs under Alternative B are excluded to ROWs,

which would better limit adverse impacts to water resources.

4.1.4.3.4. Alternative C

4.1.4.3.4.1. Program Management

Most program management actions under Alternative C are the same as under Alternative A, with

the following exceptions:

Alternative C allows new permanent facilities in floodplains and riparian-wetland areas provided

there are no practicable alternative locations and there is mitigation sufficient to ensure the action

would meet the requirements of Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, CWA wetland protections,

and federal and state water quality requirements. This management would have impacts very

similar to Alternative C.

Like Alternative A, Alternative C does not include protective management for groundwater

recharge areas to control potential chemical contamination, runoff, and sediment. Alternative C

allows more surface disturbance in comparison to alternatives A and B, with the potential for

adverse impacts to water quality and quantity. Impacts to water resources under Alternative C

would be very similar to impacts under Alternative A, although possibly somewhat more adverse.

4.1.4.3.4.2. Resources

Air quality, soils, lands with wilderness characteristics, and INNS program management under

Alternative C are similar to Alternative A, and would result in the same limited beneficial impacts

to water quality and quantity as described above under Alternative B, Resources.

Alternative C has the same 500-foot buffer around riparian-wetlands as Alternative A, except

when it can be shown that equivalent protection for riparian-wetland areas can be achieved using

a smaller buffer distance. Alternatives A and C would be similar in their beneficial impacts

to water quality, and would result in somewhat fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

Additional analysis of riparian-wetland management under Alternative C is provided in the

discussion of livestock grazing.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water
662 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative C wildlife and special status species program management is very similar to

Alternative A, and would result in the same beneficial impacts. Alternative C wildlife resources

management does not close and reclaim unnecessary roads and old mineral exploration trails, and

would not have the beneficial impacts to water quality that might be achieved under Alternative A

or B. Alternative C provides the fewest protections for special status species, and would have

more potential for adverse impacts to water resources.

Management prescriptions under Alternative C designed to protect cultural, paleontological, and

visual resources from the impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities also would

protect water resources. See the resource-specific sections in this chapter for those management

prescriptions. Generally, Alternative C would provide the fewest protections for water resources

compared to the other alternatives.

4.1.4.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Surface-disturbing activities associated with minerals development expose soils to increased

erosion over the short and long terms (see Appendix T (p. 1641) for projected acres of disturbance

under Alternative C). Alternative C increases the amount and severity of surface disturbance

related to minerals development (leasable minerals, locatable minerals, mineral materials

disposals, and geothermal leasing) substantially compared to alternatives A and B, which would

be expected to result in a proportionate increase in risk of adverse impacts to water resources as

runoff and sediment increase above natural levels. Like Alternative A, Alternative C considers

oil and gas leasing in the area along the east side of Boysen Reservoir on a case-by-case basis,

which could adversely impact water quality.

Alternative C manages the least amount of area that is excluded from wind-energy and ROW

development compared to the other alternatives. Because so much more area is available for

disturbance, impacts to water quality would likely be proportionately greater. To the extent

that new ROWs occur in the corridors designated under this alternative, the adverse impacts

associated with ROW disturbances would be somewhat more reduced than if there were no

co-location requirements.

Alternative C authorizes livestock grazing with moderate livestock utilization (41 to 60 percent)

rather than setting utilization levels on a case-by-case basis as does Alternative A, or by

prescribing light (20 to 40 percent) utilization levels as does Alternative B. This higher utilization

would necessitate more monitoring and leave less room for error than light utilization, risk greater

adverse impacts to the plant community because it would increase soil compaction in livestock

concentration areas, and have the potential to accelerate erosion through the removal of vegetation

below the threshold at which a particular site would experience adverse impacts.

Efforts to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands for water quality and

riparian-wetland management under Alternative C rely on a variety of measures and passive and

active (constructed projects) management to correct water resource problems from accelerated

erosion and restore long-term health and productivity to these areas. These measures include

fencing riparian-wetland exclosures and pastures, short-term rest, and grazing strategies favorable

to riparian-wetlands enhancement. Project impacts associated with riparian-wetland areas can

involve short-term accelerated erosion from fence installation or livestock walking on the surface,

but impacts of range improvement projects would be expected to disappear over the long term and

lead to improved conditions.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 663

Alternative C livestock grazing management would, if properly applied, yield the most expedient

results and protect water resources best (without consideration of adverse impacts to other

resources). Alternative C could lead to quicker riparian-wetlands improvement, and greater

resistance to soil erosion and less sediment generation than Alternative B. However, the risk

of adverse impacts associated with infrastructure projects also would be greater. In addition,

Alternative C would utilize infrastructure range projects with correspondingly less emphasis on

non-infrastructure range improvement projects such as vegetative treatments or aspen or willow

treatments, which would beneficially impact water resources.

Alternative C prescriptions for buffers for salt or mineral supplements are very similar to those

under Alternative A, with similar beneficial impacts to water quality. Alternative B would result

in the most beneficial impacts to water resources by reducing soil compaction and accelerated

erosion compared to Alternative A, which would result in minor additional beneficial impacts

compared to Alternative C.

Alternative C closes the fewest acres to motorized travel and closes no acres seasonally to

motorized travel. There are no acres closed to over-snow vehicle use, so there are no protections

for soil and vegetation even if snow covering is light. This would have the potential to increase

erosion and therefore adversely impact water resources. Compared to alternatives A and B,

Alternative C is the least restrictive for motorized travel in the planning area and would allow the

most opportunities for adverse impacts to water resources from soil compaction and accelerated

erosion. However, like all alternatives, Alternative C would beneficially impact soil resources by

prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle use (except regarding over-snow vehicle use).

4.1.4.3.4.4. Special Designations

Congressionally Designated Trails receive minimal protections under Alternative C, which

is slightly less protective of water resources than Alternative A. To the extent that water is

available in the protective buffer under Alternative B or would receive erosion from surface

disturbances, adverse impacts to water quality from surface disturbance would be much greater

under Alternative B than under Alternative C.

WSA management under Alternative C is the same as Alternative A, which does not close most

WSAs to motorized travel. Alternative B closes all WSAs to motorized travel and would provide

more protections for water resources from the adverse impacts of vehicular traffic.

Alternative C does not manage any NWSRS-eligible waterway segments to maintain their

suitability for inclusion in the NWSRS, so it would not preclude surface disturbance in a 1⁄4-mile

buffer, with resulting adverse impacts to adjoining water quality. In this regard, Alternative C

would result in the fewest beneficial impacts to water resources.

Alternative C designates no ACECs; therefore, it limits surface management to standard statewide

stipulations. This would result in greater adverse impacts to water resources than Alternative A or

B, and compared to Alternative B, the difference would be major. Absent ACEC designation,

there would be no Plans of Operation for locatable minerals exploration up to 5 acres in size, and

there would be more potential for adverse impacts to water quality. Under Alternative C, much

more surface disturbance in general through minerals activities and ROWs would be likely in

areas that other alternatives designate as ACECs (Appendix T (p. 1641)). ACEC prescriptions

under other alternatives would decrease the likelihood of adverse impacts to water resources from

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water
664 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

surface-disturbing activities and INNS over the short and long terms best under Alternative B and

less well under Alternative A. Alternative C does not provide similar protections.

4.1.4.3.5. Alternative D

4.1.4.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D water resources program management is similar to Alternative B, but has somewhat

fewer restrictions on surface disturbance. Sole-source aquifers and groundwater recharge areas

are avoided and pesticide use is allowed in recharge areas if no other type of treatment would be

successful. Alternative D would result in substantially fewer adverse impacts to water resources

than alternatives A and C, both of which authorize more surface disturbance and more mineral

entry. The Required Design Features discussed in the Soil section for this alternative, would

reduce the adverse impacts to water quality, but less so than the more restrictive management

under Alternative B.

4.1.4.3.5.2. Resources

Management actions for air quality and soil resources under Alternative D are very similar to

those under Alternative A, and would result in the same impacts to water quality and quantity.

Alternative D manages the Little Red Creek Complex as non-WSA lands with wilderness

characteristics. Although it manages slightly fewer acres for wilderness characteristics than

Alternative B, Alternative D management would result in essentially the same beneficial impacts

to water as Alternative B, considerably more beneficial impacts than Alternative C, and slightly

more beneficial impacts than Alternative A; Alternative A likely will limit surface disturbance in

the Little Red Creek Complex because of nearby wilderness (Shoshone National Forest) and the

Whiskey Mountain ACEC. See the discussion for Special Designations below. Under Alternative

D, CSU for slopes in excess of 15 percent limits more disturbance in areas vulnerable to soil

erosion, so it provides more benefit to water resources than either Alternative A or C.

Management of forest product sales and forests and woodlands under Alternative D limits

silviculture techniques to only as needed to protect resources; this would likely result in more

beneficial impacts to water resources than alternatives A and C, which include artificial slope

and riparian-wetland limitations, regardless of impacts. While the more restrictive management

under Alternative B would result in more short-term beneficial impacts, over the long term, the

limits on silviculture techniques under Alternative B would likely result in more adverse impacts

because commercial thinning or fuel reductions would not likely occur. However, as previously

stated, the actual impacts to water resources would not vary substantially by alternative because

of depressed demand for forest products.

INNS management prescriptions under Alternative D are the same as under Alternative B.

Compared to alternatives A and C, Alternative D takes a more proactive approach to INNS

management which would better control the impacts of erosion related to INNS infestations.

Moreover, Alternative D involves the second lowest amount of surface disturbance and second

most management focus on reducing duplicative roads next to Alternative B. The best indicator of

INNS infestation potential is the amount of surface disturbance and roads. While INNS impact

water quality only secondarily, the adverse impacts of INNS to soil and vegetation would lead

to adverse impacts to water resources over time. However, Alternative D would have the same

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 665

effect on groundwater quality in areas of inferred aquifer recharge or Sole Source Aquifers or

Wellhead Protection Areas as Alternative B as the management is the same. This would be

more beneficial than either alternative A or C. As described in the Soil section, Required Design

Features under Alternative D regarding impound pond design would reduce the adverse impacts

of INNS, including WNV-bearing mosquitoes, but less than under Alternative B.

Riparian-wetland management under Alternative D applies the same riparian-wetlands buffer as

Alternative A, and therefore would result in similar beneficial impacts to water resources. This

buffer will afford some protection to native plant communities from potential soil compaction and

accelerated erosion over the short and long terms, but not as much protection as Alternative B,

which applies a buffer 2 and a half times wider (1,320 feet) and would afford greater protection

from surface disturbances than Alternative A, C, or D. The Alternative D management approach

for riparian-wetlands relates to livestock grazing management; impacts to soil resources are

addressed in the discussion below for grazing.

Alternative D is similar to Alternative B in its wildlife protections, including greater sage-grouse

lek protections, except that Alternative D is less protective, particularly in non-Core Area and

regarding solid mineral leasing. Alternative D wildlife management is more protective of water

resources than Alternative A, and considerably more protective than Alternative C, because

Alternative D closes more area to surface disturbance (Appendix T (p. 1641)). Withdrawals

associated with wildlife and other resources makes Alternative D more like Alternative B.

Alternative D increases mineral prescriptions for the benefit of wildlife and are analyzed below

under Resource Uses.

Management prescriptions under Alternative D designed to protect cultural, paleontological, and

visual resources from the impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities also would

protect soil resources from these activities. See resource-specific sections for the prescriptions.

4.1.4.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Surface-disturbing activities associated with mineral development expose soils to increased

erosion potential and INNS invasion over the short and long terms (for projected acres of

disturbance under Alternative D, see Appendix T (p. 1641)). Alternative D decreases the

amount and severity of surface disturbance related to minerals development (leasable minerals,

locatable minerals, mineral materials disposal, and geothermal leasing) substantially compared

to alternatives A and C; this would be expected to result in a proportionate decrease in risk of

adverse impacts to water resources from compaction and accelerated erosion that is described

in the section on impacts to soil resources. Alternative D would result in fewer beneficial

impacts than Alternative B, because Alternative D closes or applies major constraints on oil

and gas leasing on less of the planning area and does not close Core Area to leasing. The

Alternative D requirement for evaluating impacts of the oil and gas program on groundwater,

including potentially monitoring groundwater quality, would reduce the potential adverse impacts

associated with oil and gas operations. Monitoring would allow management to respond rapidly

to water quality degradation. This would be particularly true for water resources outside greater

sage-grouse Core Area. However, Alternative D, like Alternative B, closes the area to the east of

Boysen Reservoir to oil and gas leasing, so Alternative D would have the same beneficial impacts

to water quality. Alternative D is more similar to Alternative B in withdrawing large areas of land

from locatable mineral entry and limiting more surface occupancy for oil and gas development

than either Alternative A or C, so the beneficial impacts to water quality would also be greater.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water
666 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Implementation of Required Design Features to limit the size and extent of development would

reduce the adverse impacts to water quality associated with those developments, although less

than prohibiting the development, as would occur under Alternative B, especially in Core Area.

However, the requirement under all alternatives for a water protection plan to be in place for all

surface disturbance makes the differences in impacts to water quality relatively small across

the alternatives.

Refer to Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander

Planning Area” (p. 45), for acres open, avoided, or excluded for industrial wind-energy

development under Alternative D, which is less beneficial to water resources than Alternative

B. However, only a relatively small number of these acres are in areas with high wind-energy

potential, so the difference in impacts between the two alternatives is less than the acres alone

would suggest; see the Soil section for a discussion of impacts to soil and vegetation, which

would result in long-term adverse impacts to water quality. Alternative D ROW management

is similar to Alternative C, although Alternative D designates fewer corridors and the corridors

are narrower than those designated under Alternative B. See the Soil section for an analysis of

impacts on soil and vegetation from ROWs both inside and outside of designated corridors, which

lead to long-term adverse impacts to water quality.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts to

water resources than Alternative A as a result of substantially more restrictions on the placement

of salt or mineral supplements, and reducing the likelihood of range infrastructure and related

loss of vegetation, which can lead to erosion degrading water quality. The reduced amounts of

livestock grazing that are anticipated to occur over time as monitoring and rangeland health

assessments identify those areas not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands

due to livestock grazing, would result in beneficial impacts to water by reducing nonpoint source

contamination. In addition, Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts to water

resources than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B, by reducing soil compaction and

accelerated erosion.

Alternative D authorizes the use of structural projects only pursuant to a Comprehensive Grazing

Strategy to make progress toward PFC and Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, whereas

Alternative B relies on passive solutions. If properly applied, Alternative D management, like

Alternative C, would yield the fastest results in riparian-wetlands improvement; however the

potential for adverse impacts to soil and vegetation, and therefore water resources, would also be

greater because more intensive grazing would be possible, although less so under Alternative

D than under Alternative C. The Required Design Features would result in further reduction of

adverse impacts associated with range infrastructure.

Although Alternative D would disturb fewer acres from range improvement projects than

alternatives A and C, the beneficial impacts of improved riparian-wetland health could be offset

by adverse impacts to soil from creating livestock concentration zones associated with range

developments and increasing use of available natural water sources. These impacts could exceed

the beneficial impacts from riparian-wetland improvement. Loss of vegetation in uplands areas

could contribute to degradation of water resources, which would have more adverse impacts

to water resources than the beneficial impacts from improved riparian-wetland condition. In

addition, range improvements would still emphasize infrastructure projects, so there would be

fewer acres of vegetative treatments and fewer projects, such as aspen and willow regeneration,

that would beneficially impact water resources.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 667

Roads and trails are prime locations for soil compaction and accelerated erosion, and the fewer

acres open to traffic, the less chance for damage to soil resources. Comprehensive trails and

travel management under Alternative D is similar to, but less protective than, Alternative B.

The Required Design Features would assist in reducing adverse impacts to water quality from

road-related erosion and pollution from motorized vehicles. The Required Design Features for

reclamation of decommissioned roads described in the Soil section would benefit water quality.

Alternatives B and D close areas to over-snow vehicle use on snow less than 12 inches deep and

would result in the same beneficial impacts to soil resources, and long-term beneficial impacts

to water resources. Neither Alternative A nor C has a minimum snow-depth requirement, and

would result in more long-term adverse impacts to water resources, although all alternatives

limit OHV utilization.

4.1.4.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative D management of Congressionally Designated Trails in the NTMC would result in

more beneficial impacts to water resources than Alternative A, substantially more than Alternative

C, and substantially less than Alternative B, again because of limits on surface disturbance in

connection with lands in the NTMC. On a site-specific basis, the actual number of acres on which

soil disturbance would be limited would depend on factors such as visual resources and impacts to

the settings of the trails. However, ACEC management of the Congressionally Designated Trails

has not been identified as more than a minor impact to water quality, so the beneficial impact

might not be great. Limits on surface disturbance, however, as discussed in the Soil section, are

likely to beneficially impact water quality through limiting erosion.

Management of NWSRS-eligible waterway segments would be slightly less beneficial to water

resources under Alternative D than under alternatives A and B. However, most of the eligible

waterways not managed as suitable under Alternative D have other protective management,

such as ACEC designation or WSA protections, that would limit surface disturbance that could

adversely impact water resources.

Alternative D designates fewer acres of ACECs than Alternative B, and therefore avoids fewer

adverse impacts to water quality from disturbance, such as identified in the Soil section. Other

management in support of ACEC protection, such as VRM and travel management, would also

lessen potential adverse impacts to water quality associated with development. This management

would avoid more adverse impacts to water resources, but less so than Alternative B. Alternative

C affords no similar protections.

4.1.5. Cave and Karst Resources

No significant caves have been identified in the planning area. However, there has been no survey

of cave and karst resources. Therefore, potential impacts to cave and karst resources under the

alternatives can be described only in theoretical terms.

Adverse impacts to cave and karst systems result from management actions that alter, degrade, or

destroy cave or karst systems and their features. Conversely, actions that result in data collection

and preservation or establishment of cave and karst resources and their associated geological,

biological, cultural, paleontological, hydrological, and/or educational values are considered

beneficial impacts. Special designations such as the Lander Slope ACEC would protect cave and

karst resources in that area.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cave and Karst Resources
668 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Direct impacts to cave and karst resources result from management actions that physically

alter, damage, or destroy cave and karst systems, including their associated geologic features

(speleothems) and biologic communities. In general, recreational uses of caves have the greatest

potential to result in direct adverse impacts to cave and karst resources.

Indirect impacts to cave and karst systems can result from actions that increase the accessibility

of cave and karst areas, and therefore the probability of adverse impacts due to incompatible

or excessive recreational use. Indirect impacts can also result from activities that alter water

quality (e.g., agriculture, pesticide application, and pollution) when degraded water infiltrates

into groundwater, thereby possibly altering the chemical and biological environment of cave and

karst systems.

Under all alternatives, if cave and karst resources protected by federal legislation were discovered,

the BLM would specially manage those areas under a protocol developed to meet preservation

needs.

4.1.6. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

4.1.6.1. Summary of Impacts

Consistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM evaluates

lands in the planning area to determine if they contain wilderness characteristics that should be

managed to maintain and protect those characteristics. As Table 4.13, “Acres of the Planning

Area Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics” (p. 668) demonstrates, Alternative B would

benefit lands with wilderness characteristics the most out of the four alternatives, as it allocates

the highest amount of acres to be managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness character to

protect these wilderness values. Alternatives A and C do not specially manage lands with

wilderness characteristics to protect wilderness values and could result in degradation of these

areas. Alternative D allocates 536 fewer acres as non-WSA lands with wilderness character

than Alternative B.

Table 4.13. Acres of the Planning Area Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Little Red Creek

Complex

0 5,490 acres1 0 4,954 acres1

Source: BLM 2012a

1Alternatives B and D manage lands with wilderness characteristics as non-WSA land with wilderness

characteristics to protect the areas’ wilderness values.

4.1.6.2. Methods and Assumptions

This section focuses on analyzing potential impacts to the 5,490 acres in the Little Red Creek

Complex found to have wilderness characteristics, as discussed in Chapter 2. The Recreation and

Visual Resources sections address impacts throughout the planning area to naturalness, solitude,

and primitive/unconfined recreation. The following indicators and definitions are used in this

analysis of lands with wilderness characteristics:

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 669

Naturalness: The degree to which an area generally appears to have been affected

primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of people‘s work substantially

unnoticeable. It is not synonymous with natural integrity.

Solitude: The state of being alone or remote from others; isolation. A lonely

or secluded place.

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Nonmotorized, nonmechanized (except

as provided by law), and undeveloped types of recreational activities.

Assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Closing areas to motorized vehicles will increase the protection of solitude and

primitive/unconfined recreation. Limiting motorized vehicles to designated roads and trails,

and seasonal closures will increase the protection of solitude and primitive/unconfined

recreation at a lower level then a year-round closure. Limiting vehicles to existing roads and

trails will not protect solitude and primitive/unconfined recreation.

● Managing areas as VRM Class II visual resources will increase the protection of naturalness

and primitive/unconfined recreation. Managing areas at a lower VRM Class will result in

impacts to naturalness and primitive/unconfined recreation.

● Designating an area as non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics will benefit naturalness

and primitive/unconfined recreation.

● ACEC management will benefit lands with wilderness characteristics because often,

management prescriptions for ACECs associated with relevant and important values (e.g.,

scenic, wildlife, and geologic) benefit naturalness and solitude and primitive/unconfined

recreation.

● This analysis only considers present conditions when considering lands with wilderness

characteristics and not the potential for other areas to become lands with wilderness

characteristics through restoration or other changes in current condition.

● In this document, the BLM refers to lands with wilderness characteristics managed to protect

wilderness values as “non-WSA lands” to distinguish management of these lands from

management of WSAs. Lands with wilderness characteristics not managed as non-WSA lands

does not mean the lands do not contain wilderness characteristics, rather it means the BLM

would not specially manage these lands to protect wilderness values.

4.1.6.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.1.6.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Consistent with FLPMA, the BLM evaluates lands in the planning area to determine if they

contain wilderness characteristics that should be managed to support and/or enhance those

characteristics. The inventory conducted by the BLM as part of the RMP process to evaluate lands

with wilderness characteristics is identified in Chapter 3. Only lands in Dubois, known as the

Little Red Creek Complex, contained lands with wilderness characteristics. Consistent with the

FLPMA and the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook, analysis of the impacts of the alternatives

addresses management of the Little Red Creek Complex and does not revisit the decisions with

regard to other areas found not to contain wilderness characteristics.

A small portion of the Little Red Creek Complex is open to livestock grazing in all alternatives,

but grazing use is not expected to adversely impact wilderness characteristics.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
670 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative C does not designate any area as an ACEC, including the Whiskey Mountain ACEC

that was designated in the 1987 RMP. However, for clarity, this geographic area is referred to as

the Whiskey Mountain ACEC in all alternatives, even Alternative C.

4.1.6.3.2. Alternative A

4.1.6.3.2.1. Program Management

Alternative A does not manage the Little Red Creek Complex as non-WSA land with wilderness

characteristics. The alternative does not prescribe management actions to enhance or maintain the

wilderness characteristics of the area. This management would result in impacts to wilderness

characteristics from other programs because mitigation actions and proactive management will

focus on enhancing the area for other resources (primarily wildlife). These impacts will be

somewhat offset by the fact that benefits to wildlife often benefit wilderness characteristics.

4.1.6.3.2.2. Resources

This alternative manages the Little Red Creek Complex as VRM Classes II, III, and IV. This

would allow for modifications to the visual environment that would increase visual intrusions and

the evidence of human presence in VRM Class III and IV areas.

4.1.6.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A limits resource uses in the Little Red Creek Complex to support Whiskey Mountain

ACEC management for the benefit of bighorn sheep (see below under Special Designations). This

management will enhance and support wilderness characteristics of the area by limiting surface

disturbance and the intrusion of human presence. However, outside of the ACEC, there are no

limits on mineral extraction or realty actions. Resource uses can result in increased road densities,

visual intrusions, unnatural sounds, evidence of humans, and social crowding. Except for ACEC

management, this alternative does not limit resource use with the potential for adverse impacts to

wilderness values. Although the mineral potential is low, the demand for ROWs to access the

Shoshone National Forest may lead to adverse impacts to the area's wilderness values.

This alternative will continue to allow motorized vehicles in the area. Travel management

decisions for the ACEC will beneficially impact wilderness values (see below). Because the

travel management focus will not be on enhancing wilderness characteristics, it is assumed

that this decision would moderately benefit naturalness, but would not benefit solitude and

primitive/unconfined recreation.

Alternative A does not include specific recreation management for the Little Red Creek Complex.

Therefore impacts from social trails, crowding, and other recreation-related activities would

continue in the area. These impacts would reduce all wilderness characteristics during the

planning period.

4.1.6.3.2.4. Special Designations

Managing the majority of the area as an ACEC would beneficially impact naturalness and

would result in limited beneficial impacts to solitude and opportunities for primitive/unconfined

recreation. ACEC management prescribes limits on resource uses, directly limiting the amount

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 671

of change that can occur to the landscape. The ACEC designation and supporting management

would primarily limit energy development in the Little Red Creek Complex, which would reduce

the potential for visual intrusions, unnatural sounds, evidence of humans, and social crowding.

Travel management limits motorized travel to designated roads and provides seasonal closures

for the benefit of bighorn sheep, which would beneficially impact the wilderness characteristics

of the area.

4.1.6.3.3. Alternative B

4.1.6.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B would enhance wilderness characteristics on 5,490 acres of the Little Red Creek

Complex. By managing the area as non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics, management

actions will sustain and enhance the wilderness characteristics of the area. Program management

under this alternative closes the area to motorized vehicles and manages the area as VRM Class

II. In addition, the alternative explicitly manages recreation to sustain and enhance wilderness

characteristics. Alternative B program management will close all roads in the area; provide

management that precludes visual intrusions and unnatural sounds; reduce the evidence of human

presence; and apply a management framework to reduce social crowding. These program

decisions would complement ACEC management in the area. The synergy of the ACEC

designation and management of the area as non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics

would result in an area with a high degree of naturalness, solitude, and opportunities for

primitive/unconfined recreation.

4.1.6.3.3.2. Resources

Alternative B air, soil, water, and wildlife management beneficially impacts the Little Red

Creek Complex by limiting surface disturbance and intrusion of human presence. Compared to

Alternative A, this management would reduce the probability of visual intrusions and evidence of

human presence in the area, and would enhance wilderness characteristics over a larger area.

4.1.6.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B mineral and realty management beneficially impacts the Little Red Creek Complex

by limiting surface disturbance and visual/human intrusions. Although mineral potential is low,

the area and other lands nearby have high potential for wind-energy development. Alternative

B restrictions on ROWs will preclude development of access to the Shoshone National Forest

which would adversely impact the wilderness characteristics. VRM is more beneficial than under

Alternative A since the area around the Little Red Creek Complex is managed as VRM Class II,

which further limits disturbance and human presence.

Resource uses can result in increased road densities, visual intrusions, unnatural sounds, evidence

of human presence, and social crowding. This alternative specifically closes the area to motorized

vehicle use, which would enhance wilderness characteristics.

Alternative B manages recreation use in lands with wilderness characteristics to maintain

naturalness, solitude, and primitive/unconfined recreation. This management would ensure future

recreation management actions support wilderness characteristics by not allowing motorized or

mechanized travel in the Little Red Creek Complex. In addition, this alternative pursues foot and

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
672 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

horseback access to this area to support primitive and unconfined recreation. These actions would

enhance wilderness characteristics throughout the planning period, and would beneficially impact

wilderness characteristics more than Alternative A.

4.1.6.3.3.4. Special Designations

Managing the majority of the Little Red Creek Complex as an ACEC would result in beneficial

impacts similar to Alternative A. The synergistic effect of ACEC and wilderness characteristics

management would result in an area with a high degree of naturalness, solitude, and opportunities

for primitive/unconfined recreation.

4.1.6.3.4. Alternative C

4.1.6.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C does not manage any area as non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics

or provide other specific management for lands with wilderness characteristics. The impacts

from program management of the Little Red Creek Complex under Alternative C is similar to

that under Alternative A.

4.1.6.3.4.2. Resources

Alternative C air, soil, water, and wildlife management is less protective than Alternative A and

thus has fewer beneficial impacts to wilderness characteristics. These resources are managed

with standard stipulations which would allow more surface disturbance which would reduce the

wilderness characteristics of the area.

Alternative C manages the Little Red Creek Complex (including the Whiskey Mountain ACEC)

as VRM Classes III and IV. This management would allow for modifications to the visual

environment that would increase visual intrusions and evidence of human presence in the area.

Because this alternative does not include VRM Class II management for the complex, adverse

impacts from modifications to the visual environment would be higher under Alternative C

than under Alternative A.

4.1.6.3.4.3. Resource Uses

This alternative does not limit resource uses such as mineral development or realty actions in

the Little Red Creek Complex, including the Whiskey Mountain ACEC. Therefore, activities in

support of resource uses would increase in the area compared to Alternative A, including: road

densities, visual intrusions, unnatural sounds, evidence of human presence, and social crowding.

Mineral and realty actions in the area would be authorized with adverse impacts to the solitude

and undisturbed character of the area. Although there is limited potential for minerals in the area,

demand for ROWs to access the Shoshone National Forest could lead to disturbances which

would adversely impact wilderness characteristics.

Alternative C places fewer restrictions on motorized vehicles in the area than Alternative A.

Travel management decisions for the area would limit motorized travel to existing roads and trails.

Because the travel management focus is not on enhancing wilderness characteristics or ACEC

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 673

values, compared to Alternative A, Alternative C management would decrease naturalness,

solitude, and primitive/unconfined recreation in the area.

This alternative does not include specific recreation management for the area; therefore, impacts

from social trails, crowding, and other recreation-related activities would continue in the area.

These impacts would reduce all wilderness characteristics during the planning period. Because

Alternative A includes the area as part of an ACEC, impacts from recreation would be limited

under Alternative A to protect relevant and important values of the ACEC. Alternative C does

not include this area in an ACEC; therefore, Alternative C would result in more impacts from

recreation than Alternative A. This would decrease wilderness characteristics, resulting in

adverse impacts.

4.1.6.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not designate the Whiskey Mountain ACEC and manages the area with

standard stipulations which allow mineral and realty actions and includes less restrictive travel

management decisions for the area, both of which would result in increased road densities, visual

intrusions, unnatural sounds, evidence of human presence, and social crowding compared to

Alternative A. These increases would result in an overall loss of wilderness characteristics in

this area.

4.1.6.3.5. Alternative D

4.1.6.3.5.1. Program Management

Management under Alternative D is similar to Alternative B, with slightly less acreage (4,954

acres) managed as non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics. The boundary in this

alternative is more contiguous with the Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area boundary which was

accomplished by adjusting the portion of the Little Red Creek Complex managed as non-WSA

land with wilderness characteristics to follow a primitive road that is also used as the boundary

of the Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area.

4.1.6.3.5.2. Resources

Alternative D impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics from resources management

would be the same as Alternative B. Air, water, soil, and riparian-wetland management limits

surface disturbance which beneficially impacts wilderness. Wildlife management protects habitat

from surface disturbance, disruptive activities, and closes the entire Dubois area to oil and gas

leasing because of wildlife resources, particularly threatened and endangered species. These

protections for other resources would beneficially impact the wilderness characteristics of the

Little Red Creek Complex.

4.1.6.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics from resource uses would be the

same as Alternative B since realty and mineral actions are sharply curtailed or prohibited in the

general Dubois area and the area around the Little Red Creek Complex. Both alternatives B and

D would beneficially impact wilderness characteristics and limit or prohibit human intrusions.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
674 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.1.6.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative D impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics from special designations would

be the same as Alternative B, which is far more beneficial to wilderness characteristics than

Alternative C and moderately more than Alternative A.

4.2. Mineral Resources

4.2.1. Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals are minerals obtained on public lands by way of “locating” a mining claim. In

many cases, such minerals are metallic in nature and because of the geologic environments in

which they are generally found, locatable minerals are also referred to as “hard rock” minerals.

Some metallic locatable minerals occur in placer deposits, like in sand and gravels near streams

and rivers. Some nonmetallic minerals are locatable too, including bentonite and gypsum (BLM

2009b). Mill sites and tunnel sites can also be located on lands open to mineral entry (see 43

CFR Part 3832 Subparts C and D). The authority for exploiting locatable minerals is in the

General Mining Law of 1872 (as amended), which allows for the location of lode and placer

mining claims and includes a prescription for patents (see 43 CFR Part 3860; mill sites may also

qualify for patent; no funds have been appropriated for the processing of patent applications since

October 1, 1994). Whether a claim to a locatable mineral is entitled to a patent depends on

such factors as quality, quantity, mineability, demand, and marketability. The law encourages

claimants to initiate exploration and development, stating that “...all valuable mineral deposits in

lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be

free and open to exploration and purchase...”

4.2.1.1. Summary of Impacts

Because of the legal prescriptions in the General Mining Law, the federal government has limited

ability to manage where locatable minerals are obtained unless the BLM withdraws those lands

from mineral development. Segregation from the mining law or a mineral withdrawal (both

subject to valid existing rights; see more about valid existing rights in Methods and Assumptions)

removes certain public lands from location and entry under the General Mining Law. Mineral

withdrawals and issues related to protected resources would result in long-term adverse impacts

to locatable mineral resources.

Over time, the method by which lands are made unavailable to locatable mineral activities has

changed. Before the enactment of the FLPMA in 1976, a number of different processes were

followed that resulted in the closure of lands to locatable mineral activities. There are existing

pre-FLPMA withdrawals (technically identified as segregations) that do not expire. They were

designated by Congress or other entities and are not within BLM authority to modify. Some are

for cultural, historical, or recreation purposes and others are to meet the requirements of other

entities such as the U.S. Department of Energy. These properties are unavailable for locatable

mineral actions under all alternatives since they do not result from RMP decisions. The acreage

associated with these pre-FLPMA withdrawals are not included in the analysis of areas that are

open or closed to locatable mineral activities. Also common to all alternatives is the withdrawal

for the protection of desert yellowhead (Yermo) habitat which is a threatened and endangered

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Mineral Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 675

species found only in the planning area. The pre-FLPMA and desert yellowhead withdrawals

include 8,634 acres.

Under regulations in effect in 2010, RMPs identify lands for segregation. This is a different use of

the word “segregation” that was in effect before passage of the FLPMA. Lands are segregated,

or not available, for mineral entry for a period not to exceed two years while the BLM pursues

the withdrawal action. The process following the RMP segregation involves additional public

notice and opportunities for commenting and extensive additional Washington level review. A

segregation of more than 5,000 acres requires Secretarial approval. Once in place, a withdrawal is

effective for no more than 20 years and does not affect existing claims. Claims that expire during

the 2-year segregation period or the 20-year withdrawal period become subject to the terms of the

withdrawal and are no longer available for claims.

For clarity, the lands that are identified for mineral withdrawal pursual are described in this

document as “withdrawn”. This nomenclature does not imply that the lands will be withdrawn on

signing of the RMP Record of Decision (ROD). The actual withdrawal process is lengthy and the

BLM may not be successful in having the lands withdrawn. However, in order to make it possible

to compare the alternatives, the following analysis assumes that withdrawal will be achieved for

the acres identified as “withdrawn”. To the extent that withdrawal is not achieved, then the

impacts to resources described in Alternative C would occur.

Management actions related to wildlife protection that could adversely impact locatable minerals

are actions that affect timing or result in delays to operators; these would be short-term impacts.

For this planning effort, impacts would primarily be economic because, for example, there

might be certain times of the year when surface-disturbing activities would not be allowed, or

there might be times when exploration activity would not be allowed within a certain distance

from a specific wildlife habitat. The BLM does not manage to avoid adverse economic impacts

to project proponents, but manages on behalf of those resources under its mandate. While the

BLM does not consider cost irrelevant in this or any other program, the BLM is not obligated

to select the alternative that is most profitable to the applicant. FLPMA requires analysis of

socioeconomic impacts to the local economy.

Finally, there are special status areas that impact locatable minerals which include the designation

of ACECs, NWSRS-eligible waterway segments managed as suitable WSRs, areas designated

as “closed” to cross-country travel (as defined in 43 CFR 8340.0-5), any lands or waters known

to contain federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their proposed or

designated habitat (unless BLM allows for other action under a formal land use plan or threatened

and endangered species recovery plan), and National Monument and National Conservation

Areas administered by the BLM (43 CFR 3809.11). In these areas, disturbances associated with

locatable mineral exploration or mining are allowed, but must be performed under a Plan of

Operations, as defined under the 43 CFR Subpart 3809 Surface Management Regulations, without

regard to the size of the disturbance. Because preparing a Plan of Operations expends time and

money and potential mitigative prescriptions could make operations more expensive or time

consuming, the impacts would be primarily short-term. Requiring a Plan of Operations is not

considered to be an adverse environmental impact.

Table 4.14, “Acres of Subsurface Mineral Estate Closed to Locatable Minerals (Segregation and

Withdrawals)” (p. 676) provides the acres of mineral estate currently withdrawn and proposed for

withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Through a variety of mechanisms that have changed

over time, federal minerals can be unavailable to operation under different mining laws (BLM

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals
676 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2009b). Sometimes the mechanism is closure, sometimes segregation, and under current law,

segregation while withdrawal is pursued. These mechanisms vary by type of mineral and mining

law. For convenience, the phrase “closed to locatable minerals” is used to encompass the various

mechanisms that are utilized to make the minerals unavailable. All alternatives have timing

restrictions, including wildlife and travel management limits. The BLM generally applies these

only to exploratory activities because once mining development begins, it is generally not feasible

to seasonally limit a mining operation without interfering with a claimant's statutory right to mine.

For ISR extraction of uranium, for example, stopping operations seasonally would likely cause

complications to the mining process that could prevent full recovery of the uranium. In addition

to lands formally withdrawn from mineral entry, when lands are sold or exchanged under the

Small Tracts Act, Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, 43 United States Code (U.S.C.)

1713 and 1716, the minerals reserved to the U.S. continue to be removed from operations of

the mining laws unless a subsequent land use planning decision expressly restores the land to

mineral entry (43 CFR 3809.2[a]).

The BLM expects that the historic (1989 through 2009) average within the planning area of

13.5 acres of short-term surface disturbance per year and 95 acres of long-term disturbance as a

result of locatable mineral exploration and mining to continue under all alternatives. Although

the acres of land closed to pursue locatable mineral entry withdrawal varies by alternative, that

management action would not impact valid existing claims. Therefore, the BLM expects these

claims will be developed in accordance with historic patterns. Although the historic pattern does

not include the years of high levels of uranium development, it does include substantial amounts

of uranium exploration. Actual mining could result, depending on unknown commodity pricing.

At present, the Lander Field Office is evaluating one mine.

Table 4.14. Acres of Subsurface Mineral Estate Closed to Locatable Minerals (Segregation

and Withdrawals)

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

23,114 1,632,605 0 449,068

Source: BLM 2012a

Alternatives A, B, and D would retain existing withdrawals including seeking renewal as

the withdrawal period expires. Alternative C would allow existing renewals except for

desert yellowhead to expire. Alternative B identifies the greatest amount of acres for new

locatable mineral withdrawals (in accordance with the requirements necessary following RMP

implementation), followed by Alternative D, then A and then C. Similarly, Alternative B also has

the greatest amount of acres that have a requirement for a Plan of Operations (ACECs, WSRs,

areas closed to motorized vehicle travel, proposed or designated threatened and endangered

species habitat, and National Monuments and Conservation areas) followed by alternatives D,

A, and C (Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander

Planning Area” (p. 45) and Table 2.5, “Comparative Summary of Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern by Alternative” (p. 50)). Alternative C does not designate any ACECs or manage

NWSRS-eligible waterway segments to maintain their suitability and 5,472 acres are closed to

motorized vehicle travel (451 acres less than Alternative A). Over time, as the existing mineral

withdrawals expire, even more lands will be available for locatable mineral development.

Note: the presence of mining claims is an indicator of interest in the locatable mineral estate. A

claim that pre-dates a withdrawal or segregation may continue to be maintained. However, if

the claimant files a 3809 notice or Plan of Operations after the date of withdrawal the BLM is

obligated to prepare a mineral examination report in accordance with 43 CFR 3809.100(a); the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 677

BLM may prepare such a report if the land has been segregated as per advice rendered in BLM

Washington Office Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2010-088.

4.2.1.2. Methods and Assumptions

The region of analysis is the entire mineral estate under the jurisdiction of the Lander Field

Office, including split-estate where the surface may be fee but federal minerals are reserved in

the subsurface estate. The analysis conducted with respect to locatable minerals is primarily

qualitative because of a lack of details and because of certain provisions of the mining law.

First, a mining claimant has a statutory right to obtain locatable minerals. Second, other than

proving certain activities conducted by a claimant meet the threshold of “unnecessary or undue

degradation,” there are very few management actions that can be taken that materially affect when

and where casual use, notice and Plan of Operations level operations pursuant to the 43 CFR

Subpart 3809 regulations may take place on lands open to mineral entry.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Because of the statutory right to locate mining claims and explore for and develop locatable

mineral resources, direct closures to locatable mineral activity can only occur through a

mineral withdrawal or segregation (subject to valid existing rights).

● The use/occupancy regulations at 43 CFR 3715 and the surface management regulations at 43

CFR 3809 (outside WSAs) and 43 CFR 3802 (within WSAs), apply to all surface-disturbing

activities for locatable minerals.

● Lands not formally withdrawn or segregated from mineral entry will be available for the

location of claims and sites, exploration, and development as per the regulations at 43 CFR

Subpart 3830 and 43 CFR Subpart 3809.

● The BLM generally approves a Plan of Operations and modifications thereto that meet all

applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and would not cause unnecessary or undue

degradation per 43 CFR 3809 and would not impair wilderness characteristics as per the 43

CFR 3802 regulations. The Authorized Officer may disapprove or withhold approval of a

plan as per the provisions of 3809.411(d)(3).

● Locatable mineral operators may not knowingly disturb, alter, injure, or destroy any

scientifically important paleontological remains or any historical or archeological site,

structure, building, or object on federal lands. This and other performance standards that

are found at 43 CFR 3809.420 apply to Notices and Plans of Operation filed on or after

January 20, 2001 or modifications thereto. Failure to comply with any performance standard

constitutes unnecessary or undue degradation.

● Notice-level activities (i.e., exploration that disturbs 5 acres or less or involves bulk sampling

less than 1,000 tons) do not require approval from the BLM (i.e., they are not considered

a federal action and also therefore require no NEPA analysis), but are still subject to the

performance standards at §3809.420, including statutory restrictions due to cultural concerns

(National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA]), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the

requirement under FLPMA to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.

● A Plan of Operations must be submitted and approved by the BLM for exploration causing

more than 5 acres disturbance, the removal of bulk samples of 1,000 tons or more, or for

surface-disturbing activities greater than casual use in special status areas such as designated

ACECs, areas closed to cross-country vehicle use, etc.; see 43 CFR 3809.11(c).

● Withdrawals are discussed in context of a locatable mineral resource use because they would

be or have been withdrawn from operations under the general mining law; i.e., location

of claims and sites as well any level of operations under 43 CFR subpart 3809 – absent a

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals
678 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

pre-existing claim are or would be precluded. Withdrawals may affect other land and mineral

laws. Proposed withdrawals are processed as a lands and realty action pursuant to 43 CFR

subpart 2310.

● Pre-FLPMA withdrawals issued pursuant to the provisions of the Pickett Act do not apply to

metalliferrous minerals (e.g., gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, uranium, etc.). Therefore these

minerals are open to location unless a subsequent withdrawal closed the land to their location.

● Except for Alternative C, all existing pre-FLPMA mineral withdrawals would continue

indefinitely.

● Locatable mineral activity in the planning area would continue at a level similar to what has

transpired over the last 20 years (1989-2009).

● Known areas of precious gold mineralization are primarily located at South Pass, near Goat

Mountain in the Rattlesnake Mountains, the Copper Mountains, and in the Granite Mountains

at Tin Cup. Based on data available at the time of preparing the Mineral Occurrence and

Development Potential Report (BLM 2009b), the occurrence potential for precious metals

in the planning area is assigned a rating of M/D. The mineral potential classification system

is based on the level of potential and the level of certainty of data supporting the possible

existence of minerals. The system classifies level of potential as No (O), Low (L), Moderate

(M), High (H), and Not Determined (ND). The system classifies level of certainty as A (lowest

certainty), B, C, and D (highest certainty). See the Mineral Occurrence and Development

Potential Report (BLM 2009b) or BLM Manual 3031, Energy and Mineral Resource

Assessment for more information on the mineral potential classification system.

● Based on data available at the time of preparing the Mineral Occurrence and Development

Potential Report (BLM 2009b), the occurrence potential for base metals deposits in the

planning area is assigned a rating of L/C.

● Based on data available at the time of preparing the Mineral Occurrence and Development

Potential Report (BLM 2009b), the occurrence potential for bentonite in the planning area is

assigned a rating of M/C. This is based on the fact that the evidence existing thus far indicates

some favorable geologic environments but little evidence to quantify how much is available

and at what grade.

● Based on data available at the time of preparing the Mineral Occurrence and Development

Potential Report (BLM 2009b), the occurrence potential for uranium in the planning area is

assigned a rating of H/D. The development potential for uranium is assigned a rating of

moderate to high, with a tendency to a high rating if market prices remain favorable.

● Due to low interest, and low occurrence potential, gemstones and other lapidary material are

not evaluated. Although historical interest in jade in the planning area has been high, no

current demand has been identified (BLM 2009b).

● Although discoveries of other valuable deposits of locatable minerals may occur during the

planning period, principally uranium and to a lesser degree, gold and bentonite (in that order)

will remain the dominant locatable minerals of interest with potential commercial mining in

the planning area. See the Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report (BLM

2009b) for more information on the occurrence and development potential for locatable

minerals within the planning area.

● However, RMP decisions do not withdraw lands from the operation of the General Mining

Law; additional processes are required that include analysis of the minerals occurring and

other factors. This process is not within the control of the Lander Field Office and may not

result in withdrawal of the lands. For purposes of analysis, all alternatives assume that lands

closed to pursue withdrawal under that alternative, if any, will result in withdrawal.

● As indicated above, the designation of ROW corridors helps to facilitate co-location of new

ROWs. While realty avoidance and exclusion areas adversely impact mineral development,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 679

designated corridors do not facilitate mineral development if operator location of needed

pipelines and powerlines is limited.

If there is no identifiable impact from a particular resource, resource use or special designation,

the topic is not discussed.

4.2.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.2.1.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Program Management

All alternatives include restrictions on authorized activities, but the degree of the restrictions

varies by alternative. However, because of rights granted to those who stake locatable minerals

and comply with the requirements of the General Mining Law and federal regulations, many of

these restrictions do not apply to those claims. All alternatives apply the requirements of the

cultural resources program and environmental protections, including the CWA, the CAA, and

the ESA, to locatable minerals, and because they do not vary by alternative, they are not further

analyzed as an adverse impact to locatable minerals.

Under all alternatives, surface-disturbing activities related to locatable mineral prospecting and

development are subject to site‐specific analysis before approval. The BLM is obligated to prevent

undue or unnecessary degradation (43 CFR 3809.1[a]), but this assessment can be done only at a

site-specific level, not in a land use plan. Limitations in the land use plan other than withdrawals

do not apply to casual use (nonmechanized mining activities). 43 CFR 3809.420 identifies

performance standards for locatable mineral activity under notices and Plans of Operation, but

these standards are essentially BMPs designed to help operators avoid unnecessary or undue

degradation, which may add cost and time to a claimant's operation and do not vary by alternative.

Mining claimants or operators must file a Plan of Operations and obtain BLM approval before

beginning operations that constitute more than casual use in special status areas, or for exploration

causing more than 5 acres of disturbance or the removal of bulk samples of 1,000 tons or more.

The requirement of a Plan of Operations is not considered an adverse impact because such plans

do not preclude development.

Limitations on surface disturbance to protect other resources, vary by alternative and are applied,

to a limited extent to locatable mineral exploration. Mitigation and site‐specific reclamation

measures could prescribe certain activities or mitigation that could reduce the economic viability

of a mining proposal (e.g., the application of standard mitigation guidelines such as slope

restrictions and riparian-wetland setbacks, and timing restrictions to protect BLM-sensitive

wildlife species). These limitations do not preclude development if needed to fully develop the

mineral, which would be part of the analysis in the Plan of Operations. While the limitations are

applied to exploration with a potential increase in cost, the limitations do not adversely impact

exploration because it is likely that the BLM would allow the exploration despite the surface

disturbance limitations if the applicant could establish the necessity for that entry.

Resources

Management to protect riparian-wetlands varies by alternative. Under Alternative B,

surface-disturbing activities are prohibited within 1,320 feet of surface water, riparian-wetland

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals
680 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

areas, playas, and 100-year floodplains, where mapped; under alternatives A and C these activities

require a 500-foot setback. However, there is little, if any, resulting difference in impacts to

locatable minerals as a result of these differences because they do not apply to locatable minerals

except in very rare cases when it is determined that without such a restriction, unnecessary or

undue degradation would result.

Wildlife restrictions on development of locatable minerals can adversely impact exploration

and development activities when seasonal timing limitations apply. The BLM anticipates that

the intensity of impacts would vary by alternative and be proportional to the actual demand.

It follows that adverse impacts to locatable minerals are potentially greater when there are

restrictions on areas with high occurrence or potential than when there are restrictions in areas

of moderate to low occurrence or potential.

All alternatives maintain the minerals withdrawal to protect critical habitat for desert yellowhead,

a threatened and endangered plant species. Although this would normally adversely impact the

minerals program, it would result in little if any adverse impact because of the size and location of

the withdrawal. Because the desert yellowhead is unique, the BLM determined that it would be

unreasonable for any alternative to consider allowing the withdrawal for critical habitat to expire.

Timing limitations related to wildlife generally apply to exploration activities only and not mining

development, although there could be certain operations under a mining plan that can be deferred

to a time when there are fewer adverse impacts to other resources or uses. There could be a

cost associated with the prohibition of certain activities (e.g., surface-disturbing or disruptive)

during certain times of year due to unavailability of workforce, higher maintenance costs, or

inclement weather, which would be proportional to the relative amounts or surface under those

stipulations. For example, delaying a drilling exploration program in greater sage-grouse habitat

until after greater sage-grouse brood-rearing season could incur additional costs to the operator

but at another time would still allow an operator to gather the data required to evaluate a potential

resource while still mitigating the impacts of the disturbance. Conversely, drilling through the

brooding season could be deemed unnecessary or undue.

Such timing limitations, would not apply to the mining phase because the efficient extraction of

the resource could require the operator to mine through habitat. For a variety of reasons, the

mine would likely operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and as stated earlier, the extraction

of the resource is not unnecessary or undue.

Resource Uses

No alternative precludes development unless the level of disturbance rises to the level of

unnecessary or undue degradation regardless of the acreage affected. While mining a resource

is not generally considered unnecessary or undue, the particular methods used and the failure

to adhere to certain performance standards in exploration and mining phases could preclude

development if deemed unnecessary or undue.

Management actions common to all alternatives that adversely impact locatable minerals include

continuing to manage all pre-FLPMA withdrawals (at the time called “segregations,” although

that term now means something else) in the locatable minerals program. The BLM does not have

the authority to modify these withdrawals; therefore, the withdrawals do not vary by alternative

and are not further addressed here.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 681

Withdrawals are summarized in Table 4.15, “Acreage of Withdrawals for the Benefit of Habitat,

Cultural or Recreational Values” (p. 681) below. All alternatives withdraw some portion of the

South Pass area, East Fork, Warm Springs, Green Mountain recreation sites, and Castle Gardens

from locatable mineral entry based on pre-FLPMA actions. Although an adverse impact to

locatable minerals, this management does not vary by alternative because the withdrawals were

established by Congressional action and cannot be changed in the land use plan. Alternative B

expands the areas withdrawn. There is little mineral occurrence in these areas except for in South

Pass because there is a low coincidence of mineral occurrences with existing withdrawals and

withdrawals recognize and preserve valid existing rights.

Table 4.15. Acreage of Withdrawals for the Benefit of Habitat, Cultural or Recreational

Values

Purpose Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Habitat protection 21,862 1,482,580 0 449,068

Cultural or paleontological value protection 927 563,640 0 352,429

Recreation or visual values and/or visitor

protection

355 169,774 0 449,068

Source: BLM 2012a

Beneficial impacts to locatable minerals result from management actions that open access to

federal locatable minerals, including allowing withdrawals or segregations to expire without

seeking new withdrawals. Therefore, alternatives that do not extend expiring withdrawals

or segregations would be more beneficial to locatable minerals than those that renew those

withdrawals, which adversely impact locatable minerals.

Trails and travel management decisions can add costs to development by requiring a Plan of

Operations if the area is closed to motorized vehicles (and claim staking would need to be done

on foot unless an administrative exception were authorized). The route of access across public

lands (that are open to mineral entry) to areas of locatable mineral exploration or mining can

be addressed by the operator in their Notice or Plan of Operations (public lands being crossed

must be open to mineral entry and the acreage of constructed-improved access is included in

the total project acreage) or be included in an application for a ROW. The BLM can, however,

designate access routes to avoid unnecessary or undue degradation. Table 4.16, “Areas and

Acreage Closed to Motorized Travel” (p. 681) shows areas requiring a Plan of Operations because

of closure to motor vehicle travel. Timing limitations related to travel management, generally

apply to exploration activities only and not mining development for reasons described earlier for

wildlife timing restrictions.

Table 4.16. Areas and Acreage Closed to Motorized Travel

Purpose and area

Alternative A

(acres)

Alternative B

(acres)

Alternative C

(acres)

Alternative D

(acres)

Wildlife: Whiskey Mountain 0 6,010 0 0

Soils/viewshed: Dubois Badlands 4,903 4,903 0 4,761

Cultural: Castle Garden 78 78 0 78

Wilderness: Copper Mountain, Dubois

Badlands, Lankin Dome, Miller Spring,

Savage Peak, Split Rock, Sweetwater

Canyon, Whiskey Mountain

0 55,338 0 12,016

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals
682 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Purpose and area

Alternative A

(acres)

Alternative B

(acres)

Alternative C

(acres)

Alternative D

(acres)

Recreation: The Bus @ Baldwin

Creek, Dubois Mill, Johnny Behind

the Rocks/Blue Ridge, Sinks Canyon

climbing area

0 7,500 0 5,195

Lands with wilderness characteristics:

Little Red Creek Complex

0 5,490 0 4,954

Wild and scenic designations: Baldwin

Creek Canyon

0 2,349 0 2,349

Wild and scenic designations:

Sweetwater Canyon

0 9,135 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

WSA Wilderness Study Area

Special Designations

Under all alternatives, WSA acres and prescriptions are the same and not further analyzed in this

document, although WSA management results in adverse impacts to locatable minerals. The

acres of land designated as ACECs varies by alternative, with Alternative B having the most acres

designated and Alternative C designating no ACECs. ACEC designation would not adversely

impact the locatable minerals program because designation only results in the need for a Plan of

Operations unless the ACEC specifically withdraws a portion from locatable entry.

4.2.1.3.2. Alternative A

4.2.1.3.2.1. Program Management

Alternative A identifies 23,114 acres as withdrawn (post-FLPMA) from locatable mineral entry

and 2,777,334 acres of BLM-administered mineral estate as open to location. Alternative A

requires Plans of Operation on just under 100,000 acres because of ACEC designation or

motorized-vehicle closures. Under this alternative, existing withdrawals are renewed but no new

withdrawals are planned.

4.2.1.3.2.2. Resources

Impacts to locatable minerals from management restrictions to protect soil, water, and

riparian-wetland resources apply primarily to the exploratory phase. As discussed above, this

would result in a very small adverse impact to mine development unless development reaches

the level of undue or unnecessary degradation. Operations conducted pursuant to the 43

CFR 3809 – surface management regulations can be precluded only if unnecessary or undue

degradation would result. As cited before, operating conditions applicable to leasable and

salable minerals do not necessarily apply to locatable mineral operations unless they rise to the

level of unnecessary or undue degradation or the operator on their own initiative includes such

conditions when submitting a notice or Plan of Operations. Alternative A generally requires

avoiding soil-disturbing activities in areas with LRP soils, but this would not limit locatable

mineral development if necessary to extract the mineral.

Lands with wilderness characteristics are not specifically managed to preserve their wilderness

characteristics, so there would be no adverse impact to locatable minerals.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 683

The greatest adverse impact of resource management on locatable mineral activities comes from

decisions to withdraw areas to protect wildlife, special status species, cultural resources, or

visual resources. However, the actual adverse impact to locatable minerals would be very minor

because there is little overlap between the withdrawal areas and the areas of high potential for

locatable minerals (BLM 2009b). However, the Lime Kiln Gulch area in the Whiskey Mountain

withdrawal for bighorn sheep reportedly contained some potential for mineral activity, and 80

acres of mineral estate in that area was not withdrawn at the time of the original withdrawal.

Heritage/cultural/historic withdrawals under Alternative A are limited to Martin's Cove.

4.2.1.3.2.3. Resource Uses

The only recreation-related withdrawals under Alternative A are those related to NHT bicentennial

sites. Travel management decisions that limit closed areas to motorized vehicle travel trigger a

requirement for a Plan of Operations. See the analysis under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

4.2.1.3.2.4. Special Designations

Alternative A Congressionally Designated Trails do not adversely impact locatable mineral

entry because no portion of the NHTs are withdrawn (except for a few sites that are common to

all). Access to locatable minerals might be limited in some areas but would not be allowed to

restrict development.

Except for the Whiskey Mountain and East Fork ACECs, ACEC designations under Alternative

A only trigger the requirement for a Plan of Operations and do not adversely impact locatable

minerals, although additional operator costs and time are required for surface-disturbing activities

greater than casual use. See Table 4.15, “Acreage of Withdrawals for the Benefit of Habitat,

Cultural or Recreational Values” (p. 681) for those wildlife related withdrawals.

Alternative A management of NWSRS-eligible Baldwin Creek and Sweetwater River units

is determined by other special designations; the Baldwin Creek unit is part of the Lander

ACEC, requiring Plans of Operations, and the Sweetwater River unit is managed as part of

the Sweetwater River WSA.

4.2.1.3.3. Alternative B

4.2.1.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B would result in the most potential adverse impacts to locatable minerals compared

to other alternatives because it withdraws the most areas from locatable mineral entry. There are

68 times more acres in the planning area withdrawn from mineral activity under Alternative B

compared to Alternative A, but 278,906 of those acres are in areas of high potential. Depending

on where current surface-disturbing activities intersect with withdrawals, surface disturbance as a

result of locatable mineral development under Alternative B is expected to be less compared to

Alternative A, although not substantially less because withdrawals are subject to valid claims.

As claims within a withdrawal that are not maintained annually as per § 3830 are declared

abandoned or void, withdrawals under Alternative B could result in increasingly adverse impacts

to locatable minerals.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals
684 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.2.1.3.3.2. Resources

Alternative B manages the Little Red Creek Complex as non-WSA land with wilderness

characteristics and closes the area to motorized vehicles, which requires a Plan of Operations for

surface-disturbing activities greater than casual use. The Little Red Creek Complex in Dubois

closes approximately 5,490 acres under Alternative B.

Special Designations addresses Alternative B mineral withdrawals for the benefit of wildlife

because such withdrawals occur only in proposed ACECs; however, Alternative B management

outside of the sage-grouse ACEC prohibits surface disturbance over a larger area than Alternative

A. This protection would not preclude locatable mineral entry if necessary to obtain the mineral.

Alternative B identifies 562,713 additional acres for withdrawal due to heritage/cultural/historic

protections compared to Alternative A. Additional withdrawals under this alternative are due to

the expansion of the NHT withdrawals, and the proposed Beaver Rim Natural National Landmark

(1,120 acres), Bison Basin Natural National Landmark (1,280 acres), and Warm Springs Canyon

Flume site (834 acres). Special Designations addresses additional withdrawals for the protection

of historic resources under Alternative B. Withdrawal of lands for mineral entry is a severe

long-term adverse impact to locatable minerals; however, there is little overlap of high potential

occurrence in these locations.

4.2.1.3.3.3. Resource Uses

In addition to the withdrawals for recreation common to all alternatives, Alternative B withdraws

5,594 acres in the Johnny Behind the Rocks area. This could be a substantial adverse impact to

locatable minerals because of high bentonite potential in the withdrawn area. Trails and travel

management decisions to support other resource values (e.g., WSAs and WSRs) can increase the

cost or the processing time for surface-disturbing activities greater than casual use, but would

not preclude locatable mineral activity (see Table 4.16, “Areas and Acreage Closed to Motorized

Travel” (p. 681)). Alternative B expands the area closed to motorized vehicle use around WSAs

to more effectively manage travel, which would increase the cost and timing of small mining

disturbances; however, there is little mineral potential in these expanded areas.

Management closures to motorized travel for recreation values trigger a Plan of Operations for the

Dubois Mill site (608 acres). Additional areas are closed to motorized vehicles, but are either

already under a Plan of Operations requirement due to ACEC designation or are withdrawn

from locatable mineral entry.

4.2.1.3.3.4. Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative B result in more adverse impacts to locatable minerals

than under any other alternative. All withdrawals identified under Alternative A are maintained

under Alternative B and substantial new areas are closed to pursue mineral entry withdrawal

(1,632,605 acres). The largest closure is to protect the setting of the Congressionally Designated

Trails, but additional areas to protect other cultural resources, such as Cedar Ridge and Castle

Gardens, would also preclude mineral location. In addition, Alternative B designates 1,246,791

acres as an ACEC for the protection of greater sage-grouse and segregates (closes) the area to

pursue withdrawal. A substantial portion of the greater sage-grouse ACEC overlaps other ACEC

withdrawals; ACEC withdrawals under Alternative B total 1,492,990 acres.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 685

There is more land withdrawn in East Fork for the protection of elk under Alternative B than

under Alternative A, which would result in more adverse impacts to locatable minerals. Because

there is little commercial potential in the expanded area, the actual impact of this expansion

would not be likely to result in anything more than minor adverse impacts. However, expansion

of the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC also includes a withdrawal of the entire expanded

ACEC, including areas with potential for gold. While the expansion would not affect existing

rights (and much of the area is claimed), the withdrawal would increase adverse impacts as claims

within a withdrawal that are not maintained annually as per § 3830 are declared abandoned or

void. However, actual impacts to the locatable minerals program are not clear because large-scale

gold operations have not been developed in the past, even with historically high commodity

prices. The more likely impact of management under Alternative B is to small operators who

participate in small-scale gold mining, although those with existing claims would not be affected.

Claims can be transferred, so closing the area could benefit existing claimants by making their

claims the only ones available in the area.

NWSRS-eligible waterway segments managed as suitable for WSR designation under Alternative

B include 31.8 lotic miles with 1⁄4 mile on each side. Alternative B withdraws these segments;

Alternative A does not; therefore, Alternative B has more adverse impacts to locatable minerals.

4.2.1.3.4. Alternative C

4.2.1.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C is less restrictive than alternatives A and B and has the fewest acres withdrawn

from mineral entry and also the fewest special status areas where a Plan of Operations is required

for explorations greater than casual use that disturb less than 5 acres.

Alternative C allows all pre-FLPMA existing withdrawals except the withdrawal for desert

yellowhead to expire (post-FLPMA mineral withdrawals expire after 20 years) and does not

manage any areas as ACECs. Under Alternative C, 2,800,467 acres of surface estate are open to

mineral entry (or would become open over time), almost all of the total acreage available, more

than any other alternative.

4.2.1.3.4.2. Resources

Alternative C includes the same restrictions on surface disturbance for the protection of soil,

slope, riparian-wetland areas, and greater sage-grouse as Alternative A and substantially fewer

than Alternative B. These restrictions would not preclude mining development and might

impact only exploration or other activities short of actual mining. As noted above, operations

conducted pursuant to the 43 CFR 3809 – surface management regulations can be precluded only

if unnecessary or undue degradation would result. Operating conditions applicable to leasable

and salable minerals do not necessarily apply to locatable mineral operations unless they rise to

the level of unnecessary or undue degradation or the operator on their own initiative includes

such when submitting a notice or Plan of Operation. Alternative C does not manage lands with

wilderness characteristics; therefore, there is no travel limitation for the Little Red Creek Complex

in Dubois and thus no requirement for a Plan of Operations.

Alternative C includes the fewest restrictions on locatable minerals for the benefit of wildlife of

any of the alternatives. Because the locatable mineral management for wildlife is primarily in

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals
686 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

ACECs, this management is analyzed under Special Designations below. Alternative C includes

the same protections for greater sage-grouse as Alternative A and fewer than Alternative B, but

the impact of this management is primarily in time and cost of processing applications rather

than constituting adverse impacts to the locatable mineral program. There could also be a cost

associated with the prohibition of certain activities (e.g., surface-disturbing or disruptive) during

certain times of year due to unavailability of workforce, higher maintenance costs, or inclement

weather, which would be proportional to the relative amounts of surface under those stipulations.

The Alternative C protections for greater sage-grouse are the same as Alternative A and much

less restrictive than Alternative B.

Protections for cultural/historic resources are the least adverse to locatable minerals under

Alternative C because no new areas are withdrawn for the protection of cultural/historic resources

and existing withdrawals will not be renewed if they expire over time; see Table 4.15, “Acreage of

Withdrawals for the Benefit of Habitat, Cultural or Recreational Values” (p. 681) for a comparison.

Because the areas that will become open to locatable minerals under Alternative C (that remain

withdrawn under Alternative A) have low potential for locatable minerals, it is not likely that

impacts under the two alternatives would be substantially different. Alternative C would result

in substantially more beneficial impacts to locatable minerals than Alternative B, including in

areas of moderate to high potential for locatable minerals, such as in the South Pass area for

gold and other areas for uranium. Potential adverse impacts to locatable minerals development

would be much less in the South Pass area under Alternative C than under Alternative B because

the expanded withdrawals under Alternative B are expected to result in substantial impacts

to locatable minerals activities beyond casual use as every dropped mining claim would be

subsequently withdrawn from mineral entry, and over time, the entire area could be withdrawn.

4.2.1.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Recreation management under Alternative C would result in the same impacts to locatable

minerals as Alternative A and fewer adverse impacts than Alternative B. The biggest difference is

that Alternative B withdraws 3,897 acres near Johnny Behind the Rocks for recreation use and

Alternative C does not. This area has high potential for bentonite. Alternative C has no Recreation

Management Zones (RMZs) and no areas closed to motorized travel; therefore, there would be no

additional cost or time to claimants from requiring a Plan of Operations for operations greater

than casual use that would occur under Alternative B.

4.2.1.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not designate any ACECs or manage NWSRS-eligible segments to maintain

their suitability; therefore, there would be no adverse impacts to locatable minerals from these

designations. WSA management as it relates to locatable minerals is uniform across the

alternatives. Management of Congressionally Designated Trails under Alternative C results in the

fewest adverse impacts of the alternatives because Alternative C does not manage these trails

as ACECs and there is no requirement for a Plan of Operations for any operations greater than

casual use in special status areas. No withdrawals are associated with the trails (except for the

pre-FLPMA withdrawals that do not vary by alternative). NHPA protections would continue to be

applied within 1⁄4 mile of the NHTs, but these protections would result in few adverse impacts

to locatable minerals.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 687

Alternative C allows post-FLPMA withdrawals that are part of ACEC management to expire,

which would be substantially less adverse to locatable minerals than Alternative B and somewhat

less adverse than Alternative A. As identified in the Cultural Resources section, this difference

would be particularly important in areas with high potential for uranium, the South Pass area,

and in areas in the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC designated under

Alternative B.

4.2.1.3.5. Alternative D

4.2.1.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D identifies 449,068 acres as withdrawn (post-FLPMA) from locatable mineral

entry and 2,351,399 acres of BLM-administered mineral estate as open to location. Alternative

D requires Plans of Operation on approximately 275,000 acres because of ACEC designation

or motorized-vehicle closures. Under this alternative, existing withdrawals are renewed and

five new withdrawals are identified: Johnny Behind the Rocks for recreation; Cedar Ridge

for cultural-Native American concerns; additional lands in East Fork for wildlife; the ruts

and swales of the NHTs and approximately a 10-foot buffer on each side; and the Lander

Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area for overlapping important values, including big game winter and

crucial winter habitat, greater sage-grouse, cultural resources, and viewsheds (Johnny Behind

the Rocks is within this larger withdrawal, but its values are focused on nonmotorized recreation

for local populations).

4.2.1.3.5.2. Resources

Under Alternative D, management to protect soils would result in similar adverse impacts as

alternatives A and C, with slightly more adverse impacts on slopes between 15 and 24 percent,

where conditions over and above standard stipulations could be applied. These restrictions could

require more mitigation or relocation of facilities but would not preclude locatable mineral

development. Impacts to locatable minerals from management restrictions to protect soil, water,

and riparian-wetland resources would apply primarily to the exploratory phase. This would result

in few adverse impacts to mine development, unless development reached the level of undue or

unnecessary degradation. As noted above, operations conducted pursuant to the 43 CFR 3809

surface management regulations can be precluded only if unnecessary or undue degradation

would result. Although lands in the Little Red Creek Complex are managed as non-WSA lands

with wilderness characteristics under Alternative D, the lands are not withdrawn and there would

be no adverse impacts to locatable minerals.

The most adverse impact to locatable mineral activities from resource management would result

from decisions to withdraw areas to protect wildlife, special status species, cultural resources,

or visual resources. However, the actual adverse impact to locatable minerals would be minor

because there is little overlap of the withdrawal areas with known mineral occurrence, except

in the Twin Creek area where bentonite is present. The lands containing bentonite have been

claimed in a few places; however, valid claims are not affected by the withdrawal. The economic

consequences of this withdrawal on taxes and severance payments would be limited because of

its relatively poor quality for commercial production, and would be offset by the increase in

value to habitat and private property resulting from the withdrawal. In some places, such as the

South Pass area, there has been gold mining in the past and recreational panning is currently

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals
688 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

occurring. Identified resources in the area are claimed and would not be adversely impacted by

the withdrawal.

Alternative D would result in the same adverse impacts to locatable minerals from protections of

potential sole-source aquifers and groundwater recharge areas as Alternative B because surface

occupancy is not allowed. Although Alternative D includes the same management to protect water

quality as Alternative A (closing floodplains and riparian-wetland areas to surface occupancy), at

most this would limit exploration and not development if necessary to obtain the mineral.

In addition to the adverse impacts to locatable minerals for the protection of wildlife common to

all alternatives, Alternative D, like Alternative A, avoids roads in big game crucial winter range

and parturition areas. This would result in a less adverse impacts than Alternative B's more

restrictive approach to road building, but moderately more adverse than Alternative C. Under no

alternative would road building required for locatable minerals preclude mining activity, but roads

would be limited to the minimum necessary. Similarly, Required Design Features would require

mining operations to limit surface disturbance as much as possible, but would not preclude

development. Limitations on activities from a Notice in Core Area during March 15 to June 30

would be a moderate delay to exploration, but would not unduly restrict activities.

Alternative D includes the fewest restrictions on the use of chemical vegetation treatment in

sensitive plant populations. However, this would not result in a beneficial impact to locatable

minerals; surface mining in desert yellowhead critical habitat is not allowed under any alternative

because the mapped locations are withdrawn.

Management for protection of greater sage-grouse under Alternative D results in a less adverse

impact to locatable mineral exploration than Alternative B, but substantially more than

alternatives A and C. Like Alternative B, Alternative D closes areas within 0.6 mile of greater

sage-grouse leks to surface disturbance but locatable mineral development is not subject to this

limitation by the BLM. (See Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from Management

Actions in the Cumulative Impacts section for constraints on locatable mineral activities that are

imposed by the State of Wyoming.) Alternative D also places fewer restrictions on the height

of objects in Core Area than Alternative B. The Alternative D determination that exploration

activities in Core Area during seasonal timing restrictions for protection of greater sage-grouse

nesting and early brood-rearing habitat would constitute unnecessary degradation would adversely

impact the locatable mineral program, but only from a timing perspective, with perhaps increased

operator cost as a consequence, but would not preclude development. The limitation would have

the most impact in the areas containing uranium south of Jeffrey City to Green Mountain that are

in Core Area; most areas with uranium potential are outside Core Area because of habitat loss

related to earlier mining activities.

Management of reptile habitat under Alternative D would result in slightly more adverse impacts

to locatable minerals than Alternative A or C and substantially fewer than Alternative B.

Locatable mineral potential has not been mapped for reptile habitat.

Lands with important wildlife habitat and other resources, including cultural and paleontological

values, historic trails, viewsheds, and other important resources, are withdrawn from locatable

mineral entry. These withdrawals constitute less than 30 percent of the area withdrawn under

Alternative B. However, an acreage comparison is not an indicator of impacts, because

Alternative D would not withdraw areas with moderate to high potential for uranium, while

these areas would be withdrawn under Alternative B. The adverse impacts to locatable minerals

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 689

under Alternative D are more similar to impacts on locatable mineral entry under Alternative A

than under Alternative B.

Alternative D management for riparian-wetland protection has the same adverse impacts to

locatable mineral exploration as alternatives A and C. This would be much less adverse than

Alternative B, which closes 125,403 more acres. Alternative C riparian-wetland management

results in the least potential adverse impacts to locatable minerals, but no alternative precludes

mining activity required to extract the mineral resource although exploration could be limited.

VRM could adversely impact locatable mineral development that does not meet VRM

requirements on a site-specific basis. Alternative D manages 6,410 acres with uranium potential

as VRM Class I and Class II, which would make development more difficult because of additional

stipulations to manage visual intrusions. This would be similar to the impact under Alternative

B and slightly more adverse than the impact under Alternative A. Alternatives A, B, and D

result in substantially more adverse impacts than Alternative C, which manages 3,630 acres with

uranium potential as VRM Class IV.

4.2.1.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Although Alternative D (and Alternative B) closes more recreation and interpretive sites than

alternatives A and C, these sites are not identified as having either gold or uranium potential;

therefore, additional adverse impacts to the development of these resources would not be

expected. Under Alternative D, the Johnny Behind the Rocks area is withdrawn from mineral

entry for recreational use; however, this area is contained in the larger resource withdrawal

discussed above. This would result in more potential adverse impacts because of bentonite

occurrence in the area. However, the degree of the adverse impact depends on which existing

claims continue to be held; where claims within a withdrawal that are not maintained annually as

per § 3830 are declared abandoned or void, potential impacts would likely increase. Whether

the bentonite resource in this area is of sufficient quality for commercial development is largely

unknown; therefore, the economic impact cannot be analyzed. Offsetting the economic losses

associated with precluding bentonite mining are the gains in economic and social welfare benefits

associated with supporting recreational use, which has been local in nature and perhaps is

increasing in use by non-local residents; see the Recreation section of Chapter 3.

ROW management under Alternative D is less adverse to the locatable mineral program than

Alternative B because fewer restrictions are placed on ROWs and more designated corridors are

provided. Less restrictive ROW management results in fewer adverse impacts to mining because

allowing transportation, utilities, and other infrastructure decreases the cost of development and

facilitates exploration. It is not possible to quantify these benefits because they depend on the

development of ROWs rather than the management that would allow the ROWs. Alternative D is

likely to be more adverse than Alternative C over time, because that alternative does not have the

extent of ROW avoidance and exclusion areas contained in Alternative D. The area where ROW

management is most likely to have adverse impacts to locatable mining is in the Jeffrey City area,

where there are uranium potential and ROW restrictions (for the viewshed and setting of the

NTMC). However, because Alternative D has designated corridors through the area in several

locations, the likely impact of the limits on ROWs would be moderate. In no event can realty

management preclude the development of a claim.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Locatable Minerals
690 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.2.1.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative D Congressionally Designated Trails management in the NTMC does not adversely

impact locatable minerals except to the extent that VRM may adversely impact certain exploratory

activity by restricting disturbances. While the ruts and swales are withdrawn, this does not

adversely impact locatable minerals because there is no mineral potential most of the NTMC.

The portion of the NTMC that has moderate to high potential for locatable minerals is part of

the resource protection withdrawal described above. However, as indicated above, the area with

potential is extensively claimed, which limits the adverse impacts. Alternative D is therefore more

similar in its adverse impacts to locatable minerals to Alternative A than Alternative B. Certain

VRM stipulations could be developed, but VRM would not preclude mineral extraction itself.

Alternative D management of ACECs and the areas proposed as ACECs under other alternatives

would result in far fewer adverse impacts to locatable minerals than management under

Alternative B, and is more like Alternative A in its impacts, because the ACEC requirement for

a Plan of Operations would not preclude development. The only withdrawals associated with

ACECs are in areas with little to no locatable mineral potential in the Dubois area, and therefore

would have unmeasurable adverse impacts.

Baldwin Creek and Warm Springs Creek segments that are suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS

are withdrawn for other values. The Sweetwater River segment is not withdrawn for other

values, so its management as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS does not adversely impact the

locatable minerals program.

4.2.2. Leasable Minerals – Coal

The BLM does not anticipate any reasonable foreseeable coal exploration, leasing, or

development during the planning cycle. If the BLM receives an application for a federal coal

lease, it will require an appropriate land use and environmental analysis, including a coal

screening process, to determine whether the area(s) proposed for leasing are acceptable for further

leasing consideration, as defined in 43 CFR 3420.1-8, after application of the unsuitability

criteria, multiple use conflict, and surface owner consultation coal screens in 43 CFR 3420.1-4. If

the BLM determines that public lands are acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing,

it will amend the land use plan as necessary. The BLM accepts federal coal lease applications

only for federal coal lands with development potential identified as suitable for further leasing

consideration after application of the coal screens and unsuitability criteria. Therefore, impacts to

coal resources from the management of other resources are not analyzed.

If an application for a lease (for coal, unconventional oil such as shale oil-tar sands, or otherwise)

for a mineral activity that is not fully analyzed is received, it would be processed in the manner

described in Section 1.5 of the NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1). The process requires a review of

the plan direction, including the broad programmatic goals and objectives. However, Section

1.5 contemplates two outcomes that would allow the lease to be approved without an RMP

amendment: (1) where the proposed action is not inconsistent with the plan or (2) where the

proposal can be modified to be consistent. The analysis in the RMP is predicated on coal,

unconventional oil, or “other” mineral development not occurring. The analysis of impacts

from mineral development, particularly with regard to the cumulative effects of all disturbance,

cannot properly be characterized if new development not considered occurs. Therefore, a lease or

application for a mineral development of a type not analyzed here would be evaluated as either

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Coal February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 691

warranted so as to be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to amend the RMP or

not warranted for further consideration through an RMP amendment.

4.2.3. Leasable Minerals – Geothermal

Lands in the planning area have been classified as having low, very low, and negligible potential

for geothermal development. Because of current policy direction guiding the development of

renewable energy resources on public lands, there could be increased interest in geothermal

exploration and development in the planning area over the next 10 to 20 years, particularly as

co-located with deep oil and gas wells. Additional information and related studies on geothermal

resources and development potential in the planning area can be found in the RFD Scenario for

Geothermal Development, Lander Field Office Planning Area (BLM 2009d).

The impacts described in the Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas section are the same as for

geothermal exploration and development. In addition, adverse impacts to geothermal resources

result from management of other resources that specifically limit or prohibit the use of geothermal

resources. Beneficial impacts result from management that maintains or increases public use

and access to geothermal resources.

Management of geothermal leasing on split-estate lands (federal mineral ownership and private

surface ownership) will not limit or prohibit the use of warm-water or normal-temperature

geothermal systems for non-utility-grade home heating or other applications.

4.2.3.1. Summary of Impacts

The primary impacts to geothermal exploration and development result from managing areas as

closed, or open with moderate or major constraints. The area closed to leasable oil and gas

exploration and development, and therefore leasable geothermal exploration and development, is

largest under Alternative B, followed by alternatives D, A, and C. Therefore, adverse impacts to

geothermal exploration and development would be the greatest under Alternative B, as identified

in the Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas section.

4.2.3.2. Methods and Assumptions

The analysis in this section is based on the following assumptions:

● BLM‐administered land in the planning area that is open to oil and gas leasing is open to

geothermal leasing, subject to appropriate mitigation developed through use of the mitigation

guidelines described in the Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas section.

● Unless otherwise noted, lands identified as closed for oil and gas leasing are closed for

geothermal leasing. Scoping comments identified the possibility that geothermal potential

exists in the Dubois area. Because of the types of resource values in Dubois, including special

status species, the area would still be closed to geothermal leasing.

● There is minimal interest in development of geothermal resources during the planning period

(BLM 2009d) and no well count and surface disturbance projections by alternative have

been analyzed.

● No geothermal development has been identified in the RFD Scenario for Geothermal

Resources as having more than negligible probability. In that context, the most likely type of

geothermal use is from cogeneration as a by-product of oil and gas operations. Therefore,

geothermal use would be considered a beneficial use of the oil and gas lease and would not

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Geothermal
692 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

require a geothermal lease. Any such use would be site specific and is not further analyzed in

this document.

4.2.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.2.3.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Management and restrictions for geothermal resources are the same as those for oil and gas

resources. Areas open to oil and gas leasing are open to geothermal leasing, and areas closed

to oil and gas leasing are closed to geothermal leasing. The units of the National Landscape

Conservation System (NLCS), including WSAs, Congressionally Designated Trails, and WSRs,

were closed by the 2008 Programmatic Geothermal ROD, which otherwise opened the planning

area to geothermal leasing.

Accordingly, although potentially open to oil and gas leasing, these areas are closed to geothermal

exploration and development under all alternatives. Exploration and development of geothermal

resources are also subject to the same restrictions on surface-disturbing activities applied to

oil and gas exploration and development. Therefore, impacts to geothermal exploration and

development under each alternative are the same as those described in the Leasable Minerals –

Oil and Gas section or, in the case of NLCS units, slightly more restrictive. Because commercial

geothermal development requires drilling and facilities comparable to those associated with

oil and gas development, management that affects oil and gas are expected to similarly affect

geothermal development.

4.2.3.3.2. Alternative A

Alternative A is the baseline for determining impacts under the other alternatives. Because most

of the planning area is open to oil and gas leasing under Alternative A, most is open to geothermal

leasing and development or open with moderate constraints.

Table 4.17, “Acres of Mineral Estate Open, Open with Constraints, and Closed to Geothermal

Leasing” (p. 692) identifies the acres of mineral estate open, open with constraints, and closed to

geothermal leasing under each alternative, including Alternative A.

Table 4.17. Acres of Mineral Estate Open, Open with Constraints, and Closed to Geothermal

Leasing

Management Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Open 728,277 6,287 797,174 53,898

Open with moderate

constraints

1,703,913 322,717 1,738,283 1,198,821

Open with major

constraints

242,266 175,369 165,747 859,566

Closed 134,686 2,304,728 107,897 696,816

Source: BLM 2012a

4.2.3.3.3. Alternative B

Alternative B closes substantially more areas to oil and gas development, and therefore

geothermal development, than Alternative A, including all of the Dubois area and greater

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Geothermal February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 693

sage-grouse Core Area. In general, Alternative B includes many more restraints on oil and gas

development than Alternative A. However, the economic impacts to geothermal development

associated with the more restrictive approach under Alternative B cannot be quantified.

4.2.3.3.4. Alternative C

Alternative C includes the fewest restraints on oil and gas development. Therefore, it would result

in the fewest restrictions on geothermal exploration and development.

4.2.3.3.5. Alternative D

Alternative D includes fewer restrictions on oil and gas development than Alternative B, but

more than Alternative A, and substantially more than Alternative C. These restrictions apply to

geothermal leasing and development. As identified above, if there is geothermal potential in

Dubois as suggested in scoping, management would adversely impact its exploitation, the same as

under Alternative B. Because there is little information on this potential and because development

would have adverse impacts to wildlife, special status species, viewsheds, and tourism, it would

not be allowed. It is not possible to quantify the economic impact of this management because the

potential is not known (no lease has been submitted) and the adverse impacts of a site-specific

application to area resources cannot be evaluated.

4.2.4. Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas

The potential for oil and gas occurrence in the planning area ranges from high to very low, as

identified in the RFD Scenario for Oil and Gas (BLM 2009c). Lands in the planning area are

classified as having potential for development of oil and gas resources. Projected drilling in

existing oil and gas development areas accounts for a large proportion of the well numbers, with a

smaller share attributed to additional new discoveries in both conventional and unconventional

reservoirs. The RFD Scenario for Oil and Gas considers the potential for development of CBNG

to be moderate, low, very low, or nonexistent.

Adverse impacts to oil and gas exploration and development would result from management

actions that restrict or constrain the potential for oil and gas leasing, development, and

exploration. Constraints to oil and gas development include NSO stipulations, CSU restrictions,

timing limitation stipulations (TLS), and allocation of public land for management of other

resource objectives that limit or prohibit oil and gas exploration and development. These

restrictions could include provisions imposed prior to leasing under a Master Leasing Plan

(MLP). Additional adverse impacts to oil and gas exploration and development could result from

specific management actions that require mitigation, certain BMPs, or other lease stipulations

to protect resources that could increase project costs and timeframes. Beneficial impacts to oil

and gas exploration and development result from management actions that increase the potential

for leasing, exploration, and development by limiting restrictions or opening areas for oil and

gas exploration and development.

Management actions to protect other resource values would adversely impact new oil and gas

leases, exploration, and development. An impact is an action that specifically prohibits or permits

oil and gas leasing, exploration, or development. Adverse impacts include the management of

areas as closed for new oil and gas leasing. Other impacts result from management actions

that place or remove surface use restrictions or impose additional requirements on oil and gas

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
694 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

exploration and development (such as BMPs or impact mitigation measures). These actions do

not explicitly permit or prohibit oil and gas exploration and development, but could influence an

operator’s decision whether to proceed.

BLM’s 2010 oil and gas leasing reform (IM 2010-117) identified MLPs as a management tool for

site-specific protection of resources that could be adversely impacted by oil and gas development.

To the extent that the additional resource protections identified in the MLP analysis limit

development, they would be considered adverse to the oil and gas program. However, they are

less adverse than closing an area to oil and gas. The alternatives vary in their use of the MLP

analysis concept.

4.2.4.1. Summary of Impacts

Under all alternatives, limitations and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for oil and gas

exploration and development also apply to geophysical exploration and development. Impacts to

oil and gas development and geophysical operations under alternatives A and C are similar in

type, although they vary in extent because of the different areas managed as closed to oil and gas

leasing and different constraints applied under these alternatives.

The most substantial difference between alternatives A and C are adverse impacts to oil and gas

development that are part of the special designations (primarily ACECs) under Alternative A but

not under Alternative C. Alternative C has no areas with NSO restrictions except for a 1⁄4-mile

buffer around greater sage-grouse leks and certain limitations imposed by the cultural resources

program. Adverse impacts to oil and gas exploration and development would be the greatest

under Alternative B, which closes greater sage-grouse Core Area to oil and gas leasing.

All of the alternatives include management that would restrict oil and gas leasing and development

to varying levels compared to the projected unconstrained baseline scenario. In this sense, all

of the alternatives would result in adverse impacts to oil and gas development because of the

application of law and policy to this activity on BLM-administered lands. Primary impacts to oil

and gas development would result from managing areas as closed or prescribing stipulations such

as NSOs, CSUs, and TLS, which create moderate or major constraints to oil and gas development.

The level of impacts varies among alternatives based primarily on the types of restrictions and the

acreage of restrictions by alternative.

Areas closed for oil and gas development are fewest under Alternative C and most under

Alternative B. Alternative C includes the largest amount of area open to oil and gas development

subject to the standard lease form only, followed by Alternative A, Alternative D, and then

Alternative B. Alternative A includes the most areas open to oil and gas development with

moderate and major constraints, followed by Alternative C, Alternative D, and then Alternative

B (because of the large portion of the planning area closed under Alternative B). Therefore,

Alternative B would result in the most adverse impacts to oil and gas development and Alternative

C the least. Under all alternatives, existing (Alternative A) management stipulations are applied

in areas the RFD identifies as having high and moderate potential for oil and gas, except for areas

in greater sage-grouse Core Area.

As described in Chapter 3, the Beaver Rim area was identified by the BLM as appropriate

for analysis under an MLP. The Beaver Rim area is analyzed under Alternative D for MLP

management (Alternative B manages this area as an ACEC and closes it to oil and gas leasing).

Alternative D utilizes the MLP approach to apply more restrictive oil and gas management than

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 695

standard stipulations but not as adverse as the impacts from closing the Beaver Rim area to oil

and gas leasing as under Alternative B.

4.2.4.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● An oil and gas lease grants the lessee the “right and privilege to drill for, mine, extract, remove

and dispose of all oil and gas deposits” on the leased lands, subject to the terms and conditions

incorporated in the lease (BLM Form 3100-11, Lease for Oil and Gas). Because the Secretary

of the Interior has the authority and responsibility to protect the environment within federal oil

and gas leases, restrictions are imposed on the lease terms.

● The Authorized Officer requires reasonable measures to minimize adverse impacts to

other resource values, land uses, or users not addressed in the lease stipulations at the

time operations are proposed. Reasonable measures could include changes in siting or in

facilities design, timing of operations, and specification of interim and final reclamation

measures. These modifications will occur only through site-specific post-lease actions (e.g.,

Application for Permit to Drill [APD] and ROWs) supported by onsite conditions and/or

project-specific NEPA analyses. Modifications of and waivers to lease terms and stipulations

can be accomplished in accordance with applicable regulatory guidelines. Surface-disturbing

and other disruptive activities will occur at existing authorized facilities.

● NSO restrictions identified in this RMP can be applied only to new oil and gas leases.

Stipulations in existing leases will continue as they are without regard to management actions

in the RMP. New constraints and requirements identified in the approved RMP could be

applied to subsequent exploration and development activities on existing leases through the

use of COAs, provided they are within the authority reserved by the terms and conditions of

the lease.

● This analysis considers the baseline total unconstrained oil and gas development potential

taken from the RFD Scenario for Oil and Gas (BLM 2009c), as summarized in Chapter 3,

and applies the alternative constraints from the other programs as described in Chapter 2. As

old leases expire and new ones are issued, new leases are subject to relevant stipulations in

the RMP unless an exemption applies. However, in accordance with 43 CFR 3101.1–2,

site-specific COAs can be applied to APDs to avoid adverse impacts to resource values by

development on existing leases.

● The number of wells the RFD projected for oil and gas does not limit or cap the number of

wells that can be drilled in the planning area, or the amount of surface disturbance associated

with oil and gas development. This clarification reaffirms that the RFD is intended for

analysis purposes only, to compare the management prescriptions of each alternative and is

not a limitation on future oil and gas development. Individual implementation-level project

proposals are subject to site-specific NEPA analysis to ensure conformance with the RMP and

to evaluate impacts to other resources. The RFD Scenario for Oil and Gas based development

potential on the anticipated drilling activity over the next 20 years and has most of the

development occurring as infill wells in existing fields and development areas. Additional

information regarding the RFD is provided in Appendix T (p. 1641).

● Oil and gas development potential is based on the following Wyoming State Office Reservoir

Management Group categories for both conventional gas and CBNG (Maps 17 and 20):

○ High potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas where the average well

density is anticipated to be more than 100 wells per township.

○ Moderate potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas where the average well

density is anticipated to be between 20 and 100 wells per township.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
696 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

○ Low potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas where the average well

density is anticipated to be 2 to fewer than 20 wells per township.

○ Very low potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas where the average well

density is anticipated to be fewer than two wells per township.

○ No potential for hydrocarbon developments indicates areas where no wells are anticipated.

● Moderate and major constraints identified for each alternative (see Chapter 2) were applied to

the unconstrained RFD Scenario for Oil and Gas development to develop Maps 29 through 32

and the RFD Scenario for Oil and Gas development for each alternative. Non-federal well

numbers and related disturbance acreage are assumed to be the same under all alternatives.

These are within the range of limitations between closed to leasing and standard stipulations.

● Areas are described as either open or closed to oil and gas leasing. Areas open to oil and

gas leasing subject to major constraints have greater adverse impacts to oil and gas leasing,

exploration, and development compared to acres subject to either moderate constraints or

standard stipulations. All areas identified as open in this analysis are subject to at least

standard stipulations.

● Major constraints are any stipulation that could restrict the timing or placement of oil and

gas developments and might result in an operator dropping the development proposal. Major

constraints include NSOs, areas of overlapping TLS that last more than 6 months, areas

closed to surface-disturbing activity, areas where surface-disturbing activity is prohibited, and

VRM Class I areas. Leaseholders have the right to explore, develop, and produce mineral

resources from any valid, existing lease, even if the area containing the lease was proposed to

be closed to future leasing.

● Moderate constraints are any stipulation that could restrict the timing or placement of oil

and gas development, but would not otherwise restrict the overall development. Moderate

constraints include all TLS, CSUs, areas where surface-disturbing activity is avoided, and

VRM Class II areas.

● Because of overlaps between management restrictions on oil and gas leasing (i.e., CSUs,

TLS, and NSOs), individual restrictions associated with resources and special designations

described in this section are not additive. The BLM has factored these overlapping restrictions

into the overall oil and gas constraints (major, moderate, open, closed) for each alternative,

where appropriate. For example, while a TLS restriction is generally considered a moderate

constraint, overlapping TLS that restrict the use of an area for 6 months or more are

considered a major constraint. In areas where overlapping management is the same and

applies year-round (e.g., two overlapping NSOs), there is no additional or additive effect.

Finally, where different types of restrictions overlap (e.g., an area managed as an NSO for

cultural resources and closed for wildlife values), the more restrictive management would

apply. Maps 29, 30, 31, and 32 provide a visual representation of constraints by alternative.

● Surface-use restrictions, including TLS, NSOs, and CSUs, and those identified through MLP

analysis, and designations of unavailable for leasing, cannot be retroactively applied to valid,

existing oil and gas leases or to valid, existing use authorizations (e.g., APD). However,

post-lease actions/authorizations (e.g., APDs and road/pipeline ROWs) could be encumbered

by TLS and CSUs case by case, as required through project-specific NEPA analyses or other

environmental review. If leases were to expire, the new constraints would be applied if the

parcels were offered for lease again; there is no “lease renewal” which would grandfather

in the older management.

● Surface disturbance projections for leasable oil and gas development assume one well per

well pad and a support road and pipeline. Projected acres of short-term surface disturbance is

12.5 acres for each non-coalbed exploratory well, 6 acres for each non-coalbed development

well, 5.5 acres for each coalbed well, and 16 acres for each deep well. Projected acres

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 697

of long-term surface disturbance is 9 acres for each non-coalbed exploratory well, 4 acres

for each non-coalbed development well, 3.5 acres for each coalbed well, and 11 acres for

each deep well. Some wells could be developed with fewer acres of disturbance than these

projections, while other wells could result in substantially more disturbance. Multi-well pads

are not precluded in the planning area, but are encouraged where possible. Multi-well pads

result in less long-term disturbance per well.

● In areas of LRP, timeframes for successful interim and final reclamation of oil and gas well

pads, flow lines, and access roads are affected.

● 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.

● Directional drilling can be used to access hydrocarbon resources under areas constrained

by surface-use restrictions (e.g., slope restrictions, riparian-wetland area setback, NSOs,

and buffers within a CSU zone around greater sage-grouse leks) that necessitate relocating

wells. Directional drilling viability and offset distance varies with the target formation, the

depth of the target formation, and down-hole equipment necessary for production. Generally,

directional drilling can be addressed only on a site-specific basis. However, directional drilling

is an approach to limit surface disturbance and reclamation challenges. The alternatives vary

in the extent to which oil and gas operations are required to limit surface disturbance.

● Leasable mineral resources are considered unrecoverable in areas designated unavailable for

leasing. Mineral resources are also 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 in

leased in-holdings are considered recoverable.

● Provisions in lease agreements expressly provide Secretarial authority to deny or restrict

development in whole or in part depending on an opinion from the USFWS regarding impacts

to endangered or threatened species or habitats of plants and animals listed or proposed

for listing. If the USFWS concludes that the development likely would jeopardize the

continued existence of any endangered or threatened plant or animal species, then the

development could be denied in whole or in part. The USFWS has determined that listing

of the greater sage-grouse under the ESA is warranted but precluded. The BLM manages

greater sage-grouse as a special status species.

4.2.4.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.2.4.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, management that results in areas being open, open with constraints,

or closed (also called “administratively unavailable” to leasing) would impact oil and gas

development by allowing, limiting, or prohibiting exploration and development in certain areas.

Impacts are similar across alternatives because the definitions of areas open subject to the standard

lease form, open with moderate constraints, open with major constraints, and closed are the same

under all alternatives. The severity of these impacts varies by alternative based on the amount

of acreage and the associated oil and gas development potential. Protective measures for other

resources, including limiting or prohibiting access and development in areas where there are

specific resources, or controlling the timing or nature of development that can occur, would

result in adverse impacts. Restrictions on oil and gas development under each of the alternatives

would also result in adverse impacts to the rate of oil and gas exploration, development, and

extraction. These impacts would increase the cost, to both the producer and the user of the end

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
698 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

products, of exploring for, developing, and extracting oil and gas. Under all alternatives, BMPs

must be implemented in the exploration, development, production, and abandonment of oil and

gas resources.

In areas closed to oil and gas leasing, valid existing lease rights are honored; however, if the lease

expires or is cancelled, the lease acreage will not be re-offered. In these cases, if drainage of

federal oil and gas is determined to be occurring, leasing could be authorized on a case-by-case

basis with NSO restrictions.

In areas of high and moderate potential for oil and gas as identified in the RFD, existing

(Alternative A) management stipulations are applied under all alternatives except for areas within

the boundaries of greater sage-grouse Core Area under Alternative B. This management allows

continued development in existing oil and gas development areas.

Under all alternatives, areas closed to oil and gas leasing will also be closed to geophysical

exploration, and areas that are open to oil and gas leasing are open to geophysical exploration.

Therefore, managing areas as closed would result in adverse impacts to exploration and

development of fluid mineral resources by prohibiting both oil and gas exploration and subsequent

development and extraction. Alternatively, allowing geophysical exploration in areas open

to oil and gas development would result in beneficial impacts to oil and gas exploration and

development. Requiring geophysical exploration to be performed within the constraints (such

as NSOs or CSUs) necessary to protect other resources would result in adverse impacts to oil

and gas exploration.

Adverse impacts to exploration, such as increased costs to the operator from the use of

more expensive but less surface-disturbing techniques (such as small, portable, foot- or

helicopter-transported surveying equipment in areas with surface-use restrictions) are impacts

to operators but extremely difficult to quantify on a planning area basis. These additional costs

to the operator are not analyzed here or compared among alternatives unless the costs are so

great as to preclude development. However, if surface-use restrictions prevent an operator from

effectively surveying and exploring oil and gas resources and development locations are sited

based on incomplete information, this would affect the operator’s ability to develop the leases.

These limitations would result in both increased expense to the operator and also in nonproductive

disturbances to land and surface resources. Further adverse impacts may be lost royalty income

and valuable reservoir data.

In areas where federal oil and gas leases are or have been issued without stipulations, subsequently

placing additional mitigation measures on exploration and development could result in adverse

impacts to ongoing or future oil and gas development. Requiring additional stipulations on new

leases could constrain exploration, development, production, or other actions that increase the

timeframe and cost of operations. Mitigating measures attached to an APD as COA influence how

an activity is accomplished, but rarely preclude the activity from occurring. Such management

actions in complex areas involving impact avoidance to several resources could limit oil and

gas operations.

Special designations (ACECs, NHTs, WSRs) and other special management areas such as those

for recreation could result in adverse impacts to oil and gas exploration and development,

depending on their locations in relation to oil and gas potential and the oil and gas management

prescriptions applied, such as NSO. Special designations do not necessarily apply management

prescriptions on oil and gas developments. For example, the 1987 RMP designated nine ACECs;

of these, three had no oil and gas management restrictions and, therefore, no adverse impacts

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 699

to oil and gas development. Adverse impacts to oil and gas development as a result of special

designations are analyzed under each alternative.

All alternatives manage WSAs in accordance with BLM Manual 6330, Management of

Wilderness Study Areas. Management does not vary by alternative and is not further analyzed

except to the extent relevant for an individual alternative, such as management of lands adjoining

a WSA to support wilderness values.

The number of acres closed to oil and gas leasing vary by alternative. For example, Alternative B

closes the entire greater sage-grouse Core Area to oil and gas leasing. The more acres closed

to oil and gas leasing, the more adverse impacts to the oil and gas program. Table 4.18, “Total

Acres of Federal Mineral Estate Open, Open with Constraints, and Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing

by Alternative” (p. 699) lists the number of acres closed to oil and gas leasing under each

alternative. The economic impacts from closing areas to oil and gas leasing are analyzed in the

Socioeconomic Resources section.

Table 4.18. Total Acres of Federal Mineral Estate Open, Open with Constraints, and Closed

to Oil and Gas Leasing by Alternative

Restriction Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Open with standard conditions

Percent of federal mineral estate

731,144

26

32,952

1

804,794

29

44,945

2

Open with moderate restrictions

Percent of federal mineral estate

1,715,341

61

309,100

11

1,755,628

62

1,260,715

45

Open with major restrictions

Percent of federal mineral estate

337,481

12

187,524

6

248,601

9

1,336,867

48

Closed for leasing

Percent of federal mineral estate

25,136

1

2,279,525

82

78

Less than 1

166,574

6

Source: BLM 2012a

Management actions that require the use of special mitigation, such as protections for cultural

resources, would impact all alternatives on a project-specific basis depending on the overall

constraints under each alternative. Standard mitigation measures and BMPs are design features

required under all alternatives and are not analyzed further in this document. In general,

constraints (such as NSOs, CSUs, and TLS) on exploration, development, production, and

abandonment of oil and gas resources are real costs to the proponent but not environmental

impacts to be analyzed here unless they preclude development. Such constraints could result in

beneficial impacts by consolidating surface-disturbing activities, thereby reducing the cost of

construction in a given area. These impacts are quantifiable only on a site-specific basis, if at all.

Major constraints to oil and gas exploration and development, such as NSOs or overlapping TLS,

result in adverse impacts to oil and gas exploration and development by limiting or prohibiting

development in these areas or requiring certain drilling techniques, BMPs, or other mitigation.

The RFD Scenario for Oil and Gas development considers constraints in determining the

likelihood of overall production. The economic implications to the oil and gas program are

analyzed in the Socioeconomic Resources section. Alternatives are compared using the number

of acres of potential under various management prescriptions.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
700 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Companies typically cannot use directional drilling to develop CBNG because the reservoirs are

relatively shallow and costs are greater because of the maintenance of the down-hole pumping

equipment. An operator could decide to not develop oil and gas resources in an area with major

constraints because of the increased cost associated with restrictions compared to the economic

risk factor. The RFD considers these factors.

The number of acres open to leasing with an NSO stipulation vary by alternative. The more

acres with an NSO stipulation, the more adverse impacts to the oil and gas program. Table 4.18,

“Total Acres of Federal Mineral Estate Open, Open with Constraints, and Closed to Oil and Gas

Leasing by Alternative” (p. 699) lists the acres with major leasing constraints, including an NSO

stipulation, under each alternative. The Socioeconomic Resources section identifies and analyzes

the economic impacts associated with each category.

On split-estate lands (areas with private surface ownership and federal mineral estate),

determination of access road and well pad locations in conjunction with the surface owner and

other considerations could result in additional costs to the operator. This analysis does not address

that impact to operators which varies in accordance with site-specific issues.

When necessary to protect important habitats, the BLM would attach COAs for operations

proposed on existing oil and gas leases in areas designated as unavailable for leasing, which

would exclude surface occupancy and surface disturbance. This is done to the maximum extent

possible without violating lease rights. Such restrictions on occupancy and surface disturbance

could limit the operator’s ability to extract the federal oil and gas resources under lease. For

example, directional drilling from an area outside such a lease to a bottom-hole location in a

leased area targeted by the operator might not be technically or economically feasible.

Under all alternatives, management to suppress INNS is required. Although INNS requirements

will increase the cost to the operator, this is not an adverse environmental impact and will not

preclude oil and gas development. Because INNS management is the same across all alternatives,

it is not further analyzed.

Under all alternatives, special status species inventories could be required for surface-disturbing

projects in known or suspected special status species habitat. Postponing or modifying projects

that could affect special status species would lead to a delay in the development and/or the

relocation of wells, access roads, pipelines, or ancillary facilities. These impacts do not vary

by alternative.

Oil and gas leasing processes were established through the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as

amended. This act promotes the mining of coal, phosphates, oil, oil shale, gas, and sodium on

the public lands, to the fullest extent possible. The act also makes leasing discretionary. The

objective is to promote the orderly and efficient exploration, development, and production of oil

and gas. Oil and gas management around intensively developed existing fields would result in

beneficial impacts to oil and gas exploration and development by allowing for full development

and ultimate recovery of known oil and gas resources. Each alternative varies in the management

of developed fields and the protections afforded to resources.

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, and 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

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 701

construction would delay project implementation while the site is evaluated, but would not be

likely to prevent development of a lease.

Moderate constraints to oil and gas exploration and development result in adverse impacts by

limiting the time of construction and operation activities or requiring specific mitigation or lease

stipulations. Moderate constraints do not remove the area from oil and gas exploration and

development or require directional drilling. Under TLS, development could become more

intensive over a shorter timeframe to complete operations before timing restrictions apply. In

areas with overlapping TLS, companies could be limited to narrow timeframes to complete work

which can compromise safety, or the activity will be drawn out over a longer period of time.

Overlapping CSUs that restrict oil and gas operations to less than 6 months in a 12-month period

are analyzed here as a “major” constraint. NSOs are the more typical “major constraint.”

The more acres with moderate constraints rather than standard stipulations, the more adverse

impacts to the oil and gas program. Table 4.18, “Total Acres of Federal Mineral Estate Open,

Open with Constraints, and Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing by Alternative” (p. 699) lists the acres

of federal mineral estate subject to moderate constraints. The Socioeconomic Resources section

analyzes the financial implications of moderate constraints under each alternative.

Under all alternatives, management actions for ROWs would impact oil and gas development

by allowing, limiting, or prohibiting facilities and infrastructure necessary for the development

and extraction of oil and gas resources, including access roads, powerlines, and pipelines.

Federal regulations require ROW grants for access roads, powerlines, or pipelines outside the

boundaries of a lease or unit agreement. Avoiding or excluding these authorizations would limit

or prohibit legal access and infrastructure to well pads. Management that limits or prohibits

ROW authorizations (ROW avoidance and exclusion areas) would result in adverse impacts to

oil and gas development.

Oil and gas exploration and development often occur in grazing allotments. Oil and gas operators

would be required to abide by mitigation measures specified in lease stipulations or in the COAs

for those operations. Mitigation measures required to minimize adverse impacts to livestock

grazing would increase the cost of oil and gas exploration and development. These measures

would include providing for the upkeep and repair of fences and gates and implementing

measures to prevent loss of or injury to livestock. Livestock mitigation would not be expected to

substantially affect the technical or economic viability of oil and gas development and are not

analyzed in this document.

Under all alternatives, pre-FLPMA lands withdrawn for recreation and cultural purposes are

managed as NSO. These designated recreation sites are small and could be developed through

directional drilling techniques; therefore, the impact to the oil and gas program would be small.

These recreation sites are in areas where there is very low or no oil and gas potential, and

therefore would result in negligible impacts to overall development in the planning area. These

impacts would not vary by alternative and are not further analyzed.

Reclaiming areas of surface disturbance with a desired plant community to prevent erosion,

monitor and treat invasive plant species that occupy areas disturbed by oil and gas development

and production, and returning vegetation and habitat to predetermined conditions is required

under all alternatives. Interim reclamation composition varies by alternative and by area and has

impacts on how quickly an area may return to usable habitat.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
702 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Under all alternatives, the extent of impacts to oil and gas development from constraints and

limitations on exploration and development are directly related to the potential for oil and gas in

an area. Management actions that constrain development of oil and gas in high potential areas

would generally result in more adverse impacts to development than similar management actions

that constrain development in low potential areas. The RFD describes the potential for oil and

gas occurrence and development potential in the planning area.

Any conflicts of overlapping resource uses, such as locatable mineral entry, ROWs, and mineral

leasing, including oil and gas resources, would be resolved on a case-by-case basis.

Any areas closed to oil and gas leasing could be reviewed for potential leasing if drainage is

determined to be occurring (i.e., if a well on state or patented lands drains the oil and gas resources

from federal mineral estate resulting in a loss to the federal government).

In areas open to oil and gas leasing, all leases are subject to standard lease stipulations; some

additional stipulations could be applied at the time of leasing. All geophysical exploration is

subject to identified COAs, and if geophysical operations can be performed within identified

constraints to protect other resources, the operations are allowed. Constraints to geophysical

exploration are the same as for oil and gas development.

Many impacts from resource management restrictions result in increased cost of operations

for oil and gas development. As for other resources and uses, additional costs and expenses

that to the proponent (the oil and gas developer) are not considered impacts to the oil and gas

program unless development is precluded. Any economic impacts to the oil and gas program

(wells drilled and produced or not) identified under the range of alternatives are addressed in the

Socioeconomic Resources section.

4.2.4.3.2. Alternative A

4.2.4.3.2.1. Program Management

Oil and gas management under Alternative A requires that oil and gas exploration and

development consider all other surface uses and resource values. No areas are identified as

primarily for oil and gas development; only the Whiskey Mountain and East Fork ACECs are

closed to leasing. See Table 4.18, “Total Acres of Federal Mineral Estate Open, Open with

Constraints, and Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing by Alternative” (p. 699) for acres open, areas

open with certain constraints, and areas closed for leasing. Areas withdrawn from locatable

mineral entry are usually managed as an NSO for oil and gas or closed.

4.2.4.3.2.2. Resources

Under Alternative A, restrictions and constraints on oil and gas development result from

management for the protection of resources. The most wide-ranging adverse impacts to oil and

gas leasing from management of resources under Alternative A result from wildlife TLS where

overlapping moderate constraints become a major constraint (although not identified as an NSO),

and cultural resource impact mitigation.

As a result of the oil and gas constraints under Alternative A, projected drilling is reduced from

the baseline unconstrained projections. The baseline scenario projects 2,367 federal wells could

be drilled in the planning area. These include 1,849 conventional wells and 518 CBNG wells.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 703

Under Alternative A, 2,274 wells are projected, comprised of 1,794 conventional wells and 480

CBNG wells. This represents a decrease from the baseline, or 55 fewer federal conventional wells

and 38 fewer federal CBNG wells.

Alternative A does not require any MLPs, so there are no adverse impacts to the oil and gas

programs through limitations imposed by an MLP.

Management of surface resources resulting in adverse impacts to oil and gas development

range from air quality, soil, water, grasslands/shrublands, riparian-wetlands, invasive pests,

fish, wildlife, special status plants, special status fish, special status wildlife, to cultural,

paleontological, and visual resources.

Wyoming air quality standards set limits on emissions, GHGs, and particulates from construction

including drilling of wells and transportation. Limiting emissions would adversely impact oil and

gas development by slowing the pace of development and increasing the costs associated with

mitigating the emissions, and would require special management limiting emissions associated

with transportation. Management under Alternative A is the least restrictive available that still

complies with the CAA.

Management of soil resources under Alternative A would adversely impact oil and gas

development by requiring movement of proposed locations and roads around slopes greater than

25 percent and avoiding areas of LRP. The largest impact from managing soil resources is from an

increase in costs of interim and final reclamation in areas of LRP.

Water resource management would adversely impact development through increased costs

associated with additional road and well pad construction design to avoid impacts from storm

water discharges and the costs of additional surface casing to protect groundwater, and would

cause more expensive management of production water. Management of water resources would

result in a qualitative impact to development and would not affect the number of wells planned

over the planning cycle.

Riparian-wetland area resource management prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 500

feet of surface water and riparian-wetlands unless the impacts can be mitigated; the areas are

managed using an NSO. A setback of 500 feet would not affect the number of wells necessary to

develop oil and gas. Oil and gas wells can be sited outside riparian-wetland areas and adequately

recover the oil and gas resources.

Management of fish, wildlife, special status plants, special status fish, and special status wildlife

would adversely impact development through implementation of TLS, CSUs, and NSOs. In

virtually all parts of the planning area, development activities are delayed or relocated for the

protection of big game winter range, raptor nesting areas, parturition areas, and special status

wildlife. Relocation of development proposals is required for special status fish and special status

plants. Implementing timing restrictions and/or relocating proposed roads and project locations

could make projects either uneconomical or unattractive to potential operators.

Management of greater sage-grouse, a high-profile special status species, under Alternative

A does not incorporate the Core Area concept and applies a 1⁄4-mile buffer around greater

sage-grouse leks. Nesting areas are avoided by 2 miles. Alternative A does not specially manage

the areas identified by the Wyoming Governor as the greater sage-grouse Core Area and has no

density or disturbance caps in those areas or any other. Therefore, the adverse impacts to the oil

and gas program are limited.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
704 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Cultural and paleontological resource management under Alternative A would adversely impact

oil and gas development and can result in avoidance areas and additional costs associated with

monitoring. Cultural and paleontological resource protections would require limited relocation or

redesign of facilities, roads, and operations, limiting development, but are unlikely to preclude

development or reduce the number of wells.

VRM adversely impacts oil and gas development if visual resource objectives cannot be achieved

and development is precluded. VRM could also increase costs of development, but these are not

considered adverse impacts to oil and gas unless development is precluded or well numbers are

reduced on a site-specific basis. Adverse impacts to oil and gas under Alternative A come from

management such as NSO in Red Canyon to protect important scenic vistas and other values.

These adverse impacts cannot be quantified in this analysis because they are site specific.

4.2.4.3.2.3. Resource Uses

For the most part, management for the development of other resource uses would not adversely

impact oil and gas development under Alternative A. Designating ROW exclusion and avoidance

areas would result in adverse impacts to oil and gas development by prohibiting or limiting

ROW authorizations for roads, pipelines, or other infrastructure that could be necessary for the

development of oil and gas resources. Beneficial impacts would result from concurrent resource

use development (so long as one resource use development does not legally impede the other) by

building infrastructure such as roads and transmission lines.

Management of other resource uses under Alternative A would not adversely impact oil and gas

development because there are few limiting restrictions. Avoidance areas for major ROW in

ACECs already closed or managed as an NSO for oil and gas due to resource protection needs

would not result in additional adverse impact. Under Alternative A, these adverse limitations on

resource uses are qualitatively not substantial.

Alternative A does not have any recreation management that would adversely impact oil and gas

development. Alternative A does not close any area to motorized vehicle traffic except in the

Castle Garden area and in two ACECs. No area with moderate or high potential for oil and gas is

closed to motorized vehicle travel.

Because Alternative A does not impose a disturbance cap on areas important to greater

sage-grouse, there would be no adverse impacts to oil and gas development from surface

disturbance caused by other resource uses (e.g., uranium development or ROWs).

4.2.4.3.2.4. Special Designations

Resource values managed using special designations under Alternative A would adversely impact

oil and gas development in special designations that have oil and gas prescriptions in areas with

oil and gas potential. Under Alternative A, 13,207 surface acres are closed to leasing because of

ACECs and 95,090 acres are NSO, including 27,728 acres for Congressionally Designated Trails.

These areas have low to no potential for oil and gas resources. Alternative A does not recommend

any waterways as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS but protects eligible waterways under the

interim management prescriptions.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 705

4.2.4.3.3. Alternative B

4.2.4.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B manages the oil and gas program to avoid adverse impacts to other programs,

particularly wildlife. Greater sage-grouse Core Area is closed to new oil and gas leasing.

However, the areas of highest potential for oil and gas are not included in the greater sage-grouse

Core Area which limits the adverse impacts resulting from this constraint. But, lands outside the

Core Area are managed to avoid adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse through NSO stipulations

within 0.6 mile of a greater sage-grouse lek and development timing limitations in nesting habitat.

Alternative B applies timing limitations to oil and gas operations and maintenance (O&M)

activities. Alternative B would result in the most adverse impacts to oil and gas operations of any

of the alternatives. However, much of the area closed to oil and gas leasing has low to no potential

for oil and gas. Areas that were identified for management with an MLP to reduce resource

conflicts are, instead, closed to leasing under Alternative B which is a more adverse impact to oil

and gas than the constraints that could be applied under an MLP.

4.2.4.3.3.2. Resources

Under Alternative B, restrictions and constraints on oil and gas development result from

management for the protection of other resources. The most wide-ranging adverse impacts to oil

and gas development result from greater sage-grouse protections.

In areas open to oil and gas leasing, all leases are subject to standard lease stipulations. All

areas open to geophysical exploration are subject to identified COAs, except for lands identified

as closed or subject to major constraints. Under Alternative B, geophysical exploration is

constrained by limiting motorized travel and restrictions on surface-disturbing and disruptive

activities. These restrictions to geophysical exploration would reduce the number of projects

developed because geophysical information provides data needed to commit to the high cost of oil

and gas exploration and development. Under Alternative B, 1,898,090 surface acres are closed

or have major restrictions for geophysical exploration. The areas unavailable to geophysical

exploration are identified as low, very low, and no potential for oil and gas resources. Alternative

B closes the most areas to geophysical operations and therefore would result in the most adverse

impacts to the oil and gas program.

Under Alternative B, 32,952 acres of federal mineral estate are open to oil and gas leasing subject

to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form with major constraints. Alternative B

has the fewest acres open to oil and gas operations and the most acres open with moderate and

major constraints. The Socioeconomic Resources section addresses the economic impacts of

this restrictive management.

As a result of the oil and gas constraints under Alternative B, projected drilling is reduced from the

baseline unconstrained projections. The baseline scenario projects 2,367 federal wells could be

drilled in the planning area (1,849 conventional wells and 518 CBNG wells). Under Alternative

B, 1,528 federal wells are projected (1,439 conventional wells and 93 federal CBNG wells). This

represents a decrease from the baseline of 321 fewer federal conventional wells and 425 fewer

federal CBNG wells. This analysis does not address limits on oil and gas development because of

surface disturbance caps (discussed below), which can only be calculated on a site-specific basis.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
706 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Management of surface resources resulting in limiting oil and gas development range from air

quality, soil, water, grasslands/shrublands, riparian-wetlands, invasive pests, fish, wildlife, special

status plants, special status fish, special status wildlife, to cultural, paleontological, and visual

resources.

Wyoming air quality standards set limits on emissions, GHGs, and particulate matter from

construction. Limiting emissions would adversely impact oil and gas development by slowing

the pace of development or precluding development for at least some period of time. Under

Alternative B, the BLM will cooperate with the Wyoming DEQ to implement the Wyoming air

quality standards and be proactive in reducing and managing emissions below state limits. This

would result in a short-term adverse impact to oil and gas development by potentially limiting the

amount of development. A beneficial impact would result if air quality in the region improves,

allowing oil and gas development without air quality restrictions.

Management of soil resources under Alternative B would adversely impact oil and gas

development by requiring the movement of proposed locations and roads on slopes greater than

15 percent outside areas identified as having high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and 25

percent inside areas identified as having high and moderate potential for oil and gas. Alternative

B also prohibits development in soils identified as LRP. Soil management under Alternative B

would result in a relatively small adverse impact to oil and gas development.

Water resource management under Alternative B would adversely impact oil and gas development

through prohibiting road crossings in floodplains and riparian-wetland areas of low, very low, and

no potential for oil and gas (because standard stipulations are applied in areas with higher oil and

gas potential). However, the potential number of wells identified in the low, very low, and no

potential areas, is relatively small.

Alternative B increases the setback from riparian-wetlands from 500 feet to 1,320 feet in areas

of low to no potential for oil and gas, which would not result in any substantial adverse impact

because most drilling operations would be able to accommodate the setback distance and still

adequately recover the oil and gas resources.

Management of the Little Red Creek Complex near Dubois as non-WSA land with wilderness

characteristics under Alternative B would not adversely impact the oil and gas program, since

there is very low to no oil and gas potential in the area.

Management of fish, wildlife, special status plants, special status fish, and special status wildlife

under Alternative B would adversely impact development through closure of areas to oil and gas

leasing, and implementing major restrictions through TLS, CSUs, and NSOs. To manage and

protect sensitive species in the Dubois area, oil and gas leasing is closed under Alternative B. This

closure would adversely impact oil and gas development in the Dubois area. However, the RFD

identifies the area as having a very low potential for oil and gas.

Under Alternative B, approximately 66,661 acres with very low potential for conventional oil and

gas are closed and 49,156 acres with very low potential for CBNG potential are closed. These

closures reduce the potential number of new wells by 5.8 conventional and 4.2 CBNG wells. See

Table 4.18, “Total Acres of Federal Mineral Estate Open, Open with Constraints, and Closed to

Oil and Gas Leasing by Alternative” (p. 699) for a comparison of total acreage closed to oil and

gas leasing under Alternative B to Alternative A. See the Socioeconomic Resources section for an

analysis of the economic impact associated with these closures.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 707

Alternative B manages areas identified as having high and moderate potential for oil and gas using

existing (Alternative A) management stipulations, except within the boundaries of the proposed

Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC, which is closed to leasing. This

closure adversely impacts oil and gas leasing. See the Socioeconomic Resources section for an

analysis of the economic impact associated with this closure.

In virtually all parts of the planning area, development activities are delayed or relocated for the

protection of big game winter range, raptor nesting areas, parturition areas, and special status

wildlife. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would confer some beneficial impacts to oil

and gas development through the implementation of species-specific TLS for raptors where

species-specific dates reduce the impact of overlapping stipulations from major to moderate

constraints.

Compared to Alternative A, greater sage-grouse management under Alternative B would result

in substantially more adverse impacts to oil and gas development. Alternative B manages areas

utilizing the Core Area identified by the Governor of Wyoming. The Core Area is closed to oil

and gas leasing, and development of existing leases must meet density limitations and a surface

disturbance cap that considers disturbance from all resource uses on public, state, and private

lands. Inside and outside the Core Area, the buffers around leks are substantially larger under

Alternative B than under Alternative A thus preventing surface disturbance in approximately two

and one half times the acres as Alternative A. While the adverse impacts from the disturbance

cap can be calculated only on a site-specific basis, the disturbance cap has the potential to

result in substantially more adverse impacts to oil and gas development than Alternative A,

which does not impose such a limitation. However, the surface caps are applied in areas of

lower oil and gas potential. Adverse impacts to oil and gas development from the increased lek

buffer were considered when calculating the decrease in the baseline unconstrained projection

identified above.

Under Alternative B, seasonal protections for wildlife are expanded to include O&M activities

when they would be detrimental to wildlife. While this management would result in a potential

loss of income to operators because they will either not be able to complete a well for production

or will not be able to resume production from a well shut in due to mechanical problems, it would

not preclude development or limit the number of wells and would result in no more adverse

impacts than management under Alternative A, which does not have timing limitations on O&M.

VRM in Alternative B has more acres managed to VRM Class I and II objectives than under

Alternative A; the more restrictive VRM would likely have more adverse impacts than applying

lower class objectives. However, VRM does not in and of itself preclude oil and gas development,

but requires that development be designed and mitigated so as to meet VRM objectives. It is not

possible to quantify the adverse impacts to oil and gas development from the more restrictive

VRM compared to Alternative A. Impacts would be site dependent, although VRM under

Alternative B would be likely to result in some additional adverse impacts over Alternative

A. However, because most oil and gas potential is in areas already disturbed and therefore

inventorying at a lower VRM Class, it is likely that VRM under Alternative B would result in

little adverse impact to oil and gas development under any alternative.

4.2.4.3.3.3. Resource Uses

In general, management of other resource uses under Alternative B would not result in restrictions

and constraints on oil and gas development because areas identified as having high and moderate

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
708 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

potential for oil and gas are managed under existing management (Alternative A) stipulations

except in the greater sage-grouse Core Area. Under Alternative B, the impacts of all other

resource uses to oil and gas development, including in areas of moderate and high potential,

would be the same as under Alternative A.

Restrictions under Alternative B that limit acres open to surface-disturbing activities regardless

of the program (ROW, locatable minerals, industrial wind-energy development) would result in

a beneficial impact to oil and gas development in greater sage-grouse Core Area outside the

Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC or within the ACEC for existing

leases. Alternative B closes the ACEC to new leasing (see Special Designations), but it also

closes the ACEC to all other mineral and ROW activities and new rangeland improvements.

Although Alternative B applies a cap on surface disturbance, which neither Alternative A nor

Alternative C does, Alternative B limits on non-oil and gas development make it less likely

that the disturbance cap would be reached.

Alternative B management of other resource uses to protect greater sage-grouse, particularly

closing all of the greater sage-grouse ACEC to surface disturbance, including locatable minerals

withdrawals, make it less likely that the greater sage-grouse would be listed under the ESA than

under Alternative A and much less likely than under Alternative C.

Restrictions for handling produced water, which would avoid surface discharge of produced water

in all new oil and gas development projects, would adversely impact any new development in

areas with low and very low potential for oil and gas and could conflict with regulations in

Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 7, Disposal of Produced Water, which makes reinjection

the preferred method but allows surface discharge. In areas of high and moderate oil and gas

potential and in existing development areas, produced-water handling is managed under existing

(Alternative A) management prescriptions. By prohibiting water discharge for new development

in the low and very low potential areas, produced-water handling costs could make new discovery

uneconomical or be a disincentive to develop oil and gas resources; this would result in the

loss of recoverable reserves.

Management of resource uses that could limit oil and gas development include ROWs and

corridors, livestock grazing, and recreation. Other resource uses could enhance the development

of oil and gas resources, such as locatable minerals, other leasable minerals, mineral materials

sales, and ROWs and corridors. Impacts would be similar to impacts identified under Alternative

A, except for the reduction in other mineral development and ROWs, which would not benefit

oil and gas development.

Under Alternative B, additional recreation areas and special recreation management areas

(SRMAs) increase the acres that would adversely impact oil and gas development. Recreation

management under Alternative B limits mineral and realty actions within existing recreation sites

identified under Alternative A and the following sites managed as closed to leasing: Castle

Gardens Archeology Site (78 acres), Devils Gate Interpretive Site (112 acres), Martins Cove

Trail (927 acres), Split Rock Rest Interpretive Site (242 acres), and Steamboat Lake Overlook

(128 acres). These designated recreation sites are small and oil and gas could be developed

through directional drilling techniques; therefore, the impact to oil and gas development from

these recreation sites would be small. In addition, these recreation areas are in areas with very

low or no potential for oil and gas, and would therefore result in negligible impacts to the overall

oil and gas development in the planning area.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 709

4.2.4.3.3.4. Special Designations

Resource values managed as special designations under Alternative B would result in

more adverse impacts to oil and gas development than under Alternative A, because more

acres in special designations are closed or managed as an NSO under Alternative B. In

addition, approximately 1,772,943 acres of mineral estate, less the approximate 66,661 acres

administratively closed in the Dubois area, are closed to oil and gas leasing in identified special

designations. These special designation areas would result in adverse impacts when areas were

closed or made closed for oil and gas leasing whereby directional drilling would not be feasible.

Alternative B manages all of the NWSRS-eligible waterways as suitable for inclusion in the

NWSRS. Although theoretically an adverse impact to the oil and gas program, this management

would result in little actual impact because only 1⁄4 mile on each side of the segment is NSO for

oil and gas development. The segments occur mostly in areas with very low or no potential for

oil and gas and could be directionally drilled.

4.2.4.3.4. Alternative C

4.2.4.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C manages the oil and gas program to maximize oil and gas production and minimize

constraints from other programs, such as wildlife. While all alternatives manage oil and

gas considering other resources, such as the greater sage-grouse – a BLM sensitive species,

Alternative C minimizes restrictions from the management of other resources. Like Alternative

A, Alternative C does not apply additional prescriptions through MLPs.

4.2.4.3.4.2. Resources

Under Alternative C, management of other resources would result in the least impact to oil and

gas development of any of the alternatives. This alternative minimizes impacts to oil and gas

leasing from management of other resources and manages oil and gas development with standard

lease stipulations, TLS, and CSUs. Like Alternative A, there are no MLPs analyses applied, so no

constraints above standard stipulations are applied.

As a result of the oil and gas constraints under Alternative C, projected drilling is reduced from

the baseline unconstrained projections. The baseline scenario projects 2,367 federal wells

could be drilled in the planning area (1,849 conventional wells and 518 CBNG wells). Under

Alternative C, 2,284 federal wells are projected (1,800 conventional wells and 484 federal CBNG

wells). This represents a decrease from the baseline, or 49 fewer federal conventional wells

and 34 fewer federal CBNG wells.

Wyoming air quality standards set limits on emissions, GHGs, and particulate matter from

construction. Limitations to oil and gas development from management of air quality would be

fewer than identified for Alternative B and the same as Alternative A.

Management of soil resources under Alternative C would adversely impact oil and gas

development by requiring movement of proposed locations and roads around slopes greater than

25 percent. This impact would be the same as Alternative A and less adverse than Alternative B.

However, the slope limitation would result in very few actual impacts to oil and gas operations

because well locations can be changed to accommodate the slope restriction.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
710 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Water resource management under Alternative C is the least restrictive of any alternative and

would allow development and surface disturbance in riparian-wetlands so long as mitigation is

adequate to comply with CWA provisions. This different management would result in fewer

adverse impacts than Alternative A, B, or D, because it is relatively easy to relocate wells to

accommodate setbacks for most types of drilling scenarios.

Alternative C is the least restrictive concerning setbacks from riparian-wetland areas.

Management requires a setback of 500 feet from riparian-wetland areas. However, less

distance could be authorized if it is shown that equivalent protection of the surface water and

riparian-wetland areas could be accomplished. Impacts to oil and gas development under

Alternative C restrictions would be less than under alternatives A and B.

Management of fish, wildlife, special status plants, special status fish, and special status wildlife

under Alternative C would adversely impact oil and gas development through closure of areas

to oil and gas leasing, and implementing restrictions through TLS, CSUs, and NSOs. Under

Alternative C, oil and gas leases have stipulations for the protection of fish, wildlife, special status

plants, special status fish, and special status wildlife, but these stipulations have the lowest level

of restrictions on oil and gas development that meets BLM's obligation for minimum resource

protections. Site-specific applications of moderate stipulations would not adversely impact oil

and gas development beyond a very limited amount. The difference in moderate and major

constraints among alternatives A, B, and C are reflected in the variation from baseline discussed

above. Alternative C has the least reduction from baseline.

Cultural and paleontological resource management under Alternative C would not be likely

to adversely impact oil and gas development because the resource can generally be avoided.

Development would continue, with impacts similar to Alternative A, using minimum restrictions

so long as adverse impacts are avoided for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible

properties and activities proceed in accordance with current Wyoming State Protocol and NHPA

regulations.

VRM adversely impacts oil and gas development, as addressed under Alternative A. Under

Alternative C, most of the planning area (97 percent) is managed as VRM Classes III and IV,

which would result in no adverse impacts to oil and gas development.

4.2.4.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative C, there would be few adverse impacts to oil and gas development from

management for the development of resource uses in programs such as locatable minerals and

ROWs.

Restrictions for handling produced water under Alternative C would result in the same impacts

as Alternative A. Alternative C manages produced-water handling under existing management

prescriptions (Alternative A) identified in regulations in Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 7,

Disposal of Produced Water. This is less restrictive than Alternative B, which prohibits surface

discharge for new development in areas with low and very low potential for oil and gas.

Management of resource uses that could limit oil and gas development include ROWs and

corridors, livestock grazing, and recreation. Other resource uses could enhance the development

of oil and gas resources, such as locatable minerals, other leasable minerals, mineral materials

sales, and ROWs and corridors by providing infrastructure such as roads and powerlines that can

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 711

be used for oil and gas developments. Impacts to oil and gas development under Alternative C

would be similar to impacts under Alternative A and substantially less than under Alternative B.

Recreation areas and SRMAs do not restrict oil and gas resources. Therefore, management of

recreation resource uses would not impact oil and gas development.

4.2.4.3.4.4. Special Designations

Resource values managed as special designations under Alternative C would not adversely impact

oil and gas development in the planning area. Alternative C does not manage any areas as ACECs,

so all areas would be open to oil and gas leasing with standard stipulations. Congressionally

Designated Trails are NSO for 1⁄4 mile or less on either side of the trails, which would not

preclude oil and gas development. Alternative C does not manage any waterways to maintain

their suitability for inclusion in the NWSRS.

4.2.4.3.5. Alternative D

4.2.4.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D manages the oil and gas program to maximize oil and gas production in areas with

moderate and high potential for oil and gas while avoiding adverse impacts to other programs,

particularly wildlife. The areas with the highest potential for oil and gas are not included in the

greater sage-grouse Core Area, but are still managed to protect greater sage-grouse leks and

impose timing limitations on development in nesting habitat. Under Alternative D, the BLM

would institute Required Design Features for the protection of greater sage-grouse, some of

which are applied outside of Core Area, primarily as BMPs to be considered on a site-specific

basis. Alternative D has Designated Development Areas (DDAs) for oil and gas with different

reclamation objectives. Outside DDAs, Alternative D applies TLS to oil and gas O&M activities

if those activities would be detrimental to wildlife. Alternative D would result in the second

most adverse impacts to oil and gas operations of any of the alternatives behind Alternative B.

Alternative D uses an MLP analysis in the Beaver Rim area (150,782 acres) as a tool to limit

resource conflicts.

4.2.4.3.5.2. Resources

Under Alternative D, restrictions and constraints on oil and gas development result from

management for the protection of other resources. The most wide-ranging impacts to oil and

gas leasing from management of other resources result from greater sage-grouse protections

and from management that closes the area to oil and gas leasing or makes it an NSO for the

protection of wildlife, or applies cultural resources mitigation measures. This management is

primarily in Special Designations (see below). The entire Dubois area is also closed to oil and gas

development to benefit wildlife, including special status species. Adverse impacts to oil and gas

result from the closing of approximately 8,500 acres to leasing to the east of Boysen Reservoir to

benefit the Park to Park Highway, recreational values associated with the State Park, viewshed,

water quality and wildlife and special status species habitat. Because of very low potential, the

resulting impact would unlikely be more than moderate.

In areas open to oil and gas leasing, all leases are subject to standard lease stipulations. Additional

stipulations may be applied in some areas to the lease or as COAs. Alternative D has Required

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
712 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Design Features that are applied to all leases; the Required Design Features vary between what

is required inside and outside of Core Area, although some Required Design Features, such as

the design of impound ponds, apply to the entire planning area in an approach to limiting WNV

through reducing breeding grounds for mosquitoes.

All geophysical exploration is subject to identified COAs adopted at the project level. Under

Alternative D, geophysical exploration is constrained by limiting motorized travel and restrictions

on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities. Limits on geophysical exploration would reduce

oil and gas development because producers are unlikely to invest in development without

supporting data. Alternative D closes or places major restrictions on geophysical exploration on

1,898,090 surface acres which is the second highest restriction of the alternatives, exceeded only

by Alternative B. The areas unavailable to geophysical exploration under Alternative D are

identified as having low, very low, and no potential for oil and gas resources, so the impact of

these closures, while adverse, could have little actual effect.

Under Alternative D, 44,945 acres of federal mineral estate are open to oil and gas leasing subject

to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form and major constraints. Major constraints to

oil and gas exploration and development are the same constraints identified and described under

Impacts Common to All Alternatives, such as NSOs or overlapping TLS. These restrictions would

adversely impact oil and gas exploration and development by limiting or prohibiting development

in these areas or requiring certain drilling techniques, BMPs, or impact mitigation measures.

Alternative D includes the second fewest acres open to oil and gas operations and the most acres

open with moderate and major constraints. The Socioeconomic Resources section addresses the

economic impacts of this restrictive management.

In contrast to the other alternatives, Alternative D conducted an MLP analysis in the Beaver

Rim area, east of the Beaver Rim ACEC established in the existing plan. Protective measures

identified in the MLP analysis have adverse impacts to the oil and gas program to the extent that

development is limited or constrained. MLP analysis identifies tools to reduce conflicts between

development and identified resource values. As described below, the Beaver Rim MLP includes

NSO and CSU stipulations that could adversely impact oil and gas development. However, given

the low oil and gas development potential in the area, the degree of impact is limited. These

impacts are more adverse than the impacts under alternatives A and C but less adverse than the

lease closure under Alternative B. The BLM assumes that there will be little economic impact

from this management in light of the relative low potential and that oil and gas development

is still allowed, albeit with more constraints.

As a result of the oil and gas constraints under Alternative D, projected drilling is reduced from

the baseline unconstrained projections of 2,367 federal wells (1,849 conventional wells and 518

CBNG wells). Under Alternative D, 2,125 federal wells are projected (1,719 conventional wells

and 406 federal CBNG wells). This represents a decrease from the baseline, or 130 fewer federal

conventional wells and 112 fewer federal CBNG wells.

Management of surface resources that result in limiting oil and gas development range from air

quality, soil, water, grasslands/shrublands, riparian-wetlands, invasive pests, fish, wildlife, special

status plants, special status fish, special status wildlife, to cultural, paleontological, and visual

resources. Constraints on oil and gas leasing identified in the MLP analysis are also applied to

the Beaver Rim area. The 29,527 acres with NSO stipulations have the most adverse impacts,

although the low potential in the area limits the degree of impacts. Those portions of the area with

oil and gas development potential recognized by industry are already leased; the NSO stipulation

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 713

would apply only if the leases ended. The areas for which NSO stipulations apply include the

areas that are NSO under all alternatives for the protection of the ESA-listed threatened plant

species desert yellowhead. The adverse impacts associated with this management are greater

than alternatives A and C.

The remainder of the MLP analysis area (121,255 acres) is subject to CSU stipulations. The

impact to oil and gas leasing in this area would be somewhat more adverse than under either

Alternative A or C because the timing of development and locations would be more constrained.

However, this management is far less adverse than under Alternative B which closes almost

all of the area to oil and gas leasing for the protection of greater sage-grouse. The oil and gas

potential in the CSU portion of the MLP analysis area is low to none; therefore, the adverse

impacts from MLP management in the area would likely be modest. The other aspects of MLP

management such as protections for paleontological resources or Native American consultation

could result in minor adverse impacts such as relocation of facilities. Requiring no more than 5

percent disturbance in the township in which a leased parcel in the Beaver Rim MLP is located

until interim reclamation goals are achieved, would result in adverse impacts to oil and gas

management but would not preclude full recovery of oil and gas. Designation of two ROW

corridors through the MLP would beneficially impact oil and gas by expediting approval of

needed utility and transportation grants. The limitations on disturbance would have more

adverse impacts than under either Alternative A or C which have no similar management. The

economic consequences of MLP management are anticipated to be limited given that oil and gas

development is still allowed and the relative low potential for oil and gas in the area.

Wyoming air quality standards set limits on emissions, GHGs, and particulate matter from

construction. Limiting emissions would adversely impact oil and gas development by slowing

the pace of development and increasing the costs associated with mitigating emissions, as

identified under Alternative A. Air quality management under Alternative D is the same as

under alternatives A and C, except to the extent that the Lander Air Resources Plan (Appendix

F (p. 1491)) requires more extensive modeling and collection of baseline data. Limits on

emissions could adversely impact oil and gas by making exploration and development more

expensive, including possibly limiting development because of limits on emissions.

Management of soil resources under Alternative D is similar to alternatives A and C, but would

result in somewhat more adverse impacts to oil and gas development, because on slopes between

15 and 25 percent outside of DDAs, more roads and other developments might need to be

relocated to avoid damage to soils. Alternative D would result in fewer impacts to oil and gas

development from management of soil resources than Alternative B, which not only prohibits

surface disturbance on slopes greater than 15 percent but also restricts development in soils with

LRP outside of DDAs. While Alternative D (as well as alternatives A and C) would theoretically

result in fewer adverse impacts to oil and gas development, it is likely to result in limited actual

adverse impacts because of the low or no potential for oil and gas outside of DDAs. A primary

area where the difference in impacts could be important is in the Green Mountain area. Requiring

groundwater monitoring on a site-specific basis will adversely impact the oil and gas program by

increasing costs and potentially limiting operations, depending on the results of monitoring. These

impacts would be later in time and limited to projects where conditions required monitoring.

Required Design Features to limit adverse impacts to soils would adversely impact oil and gas

development by potentially increasing infrastructure cost, but would be offset to some degree by

having smaller areas subject to interim and final reclamation. Required Design Features to reduce

the spread of vectors of WNV would adversely impact soil resources, and therefore vegetation

resources, to the extent that impoundment ponds are larger, deeper, and more permanent.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
714 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Water resource management under Alternative D, like Alternative A, would result in slightly

fewer adverse impacts to oil and gas development than Alternative B, because road crossings

in floodplains and riparian-wetland areas would be managed. However, the potential number of

wells identified in these areas is relatively small. Requiring existing wells that were drilled before

modern casing requirements to be assessed for potential to degrade groundwater quality could

adversely impact re-completions, but because this management is subject to the provisions of 43

CFR 3162.3–2 “Subsequent Well Operations,” these impacts would be small and limited in effect.

Alternative D includes the same setback from riparian-wetlands as alternatives A and C (which

has some additional flexibility). Therefore, adverse impacts to the oil and gas program would

be the same as under Alternative A, slightly less than Alternative C, and less than Alternative

B. However, this management is applied only in areas other than those with high and moderate

potential for oil and gas, as identified under Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Generally,

operators are able to accommodate riparian-wetland setbacks, so there would be limited adverse

impacts. To the extent that Required Design Features limit surface disposal of produced water,

there would be impacts to oil and gas operations, particularly in areas where produced water

volumes are large. The extent of this impact cannot be fully analyzed except on a site-specific

basis, because produced water varies geographically and geologically in the planning area.

Management of the Little Red Creek Complex near Dubois as non-WSA land with wilderness

characteristics would not adversely impact the oil and gas program because there is no oil and

gas potential in that area.

Alternative D management of fish, wildlife, special status plants, special status fish, and special

status wildlife would adversely impact oil and gas development through closing areas to oil and

gas leasing, and implementing major restrictions in the form of TLS, CSUs, and NSOs, as well

as Required Design Features. To manage and protect sensitive species in the Dubois area, like

Alternative B, Alternative D closes the area to oil and gas leasing. This closure would adversely

affect oil and gas development in the Dubois area; however, the RFD identifies the area as having

very low potential for oil and gas. Under Alternative D, approximately 66,661 acres with very

low potential for conventional oil and gas are closed and 49,156 acres of with very low CBNG

potential are closed. These closures reduce the potential number of new wells by 5.8 conventional

and 4.2 CBNG wells. See the Socioeconomic Resources section for an analysis of the economic

impacts associated with these closures.

Management for important wildlife values, including winter ranges for elk and mule deer,

greater sage-grouse habitat, visual resources, cultural resources, and historic trails in the Lander

Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area would adversely impact oil and gas through the use of NSO

stipulations on new leases. In addition, timing limitations that are applied to crucial winter mule

deer habitat are applied to all mule deer habitat. The extent of the adverse impact would likely be

no more than moderate because the stipulations do not apply to the areas already leased, which

include those areas with greater than very low oil and gas potential. Existing leases in production

do not expire, so no adverse impacts to oil and gas from NSO management under Alternative D

would continue in the future and would not limit secondary recovery or enhanced oil and gas

recovery. Alternative D management is less adverse than Alternative B, which closes the area to

oil and gas leasing. NSO management is a major constraint on oil and gas development. However,

leasing is still allowed, and the NSO mineral estate could be accessed through directional drilling.

Alternative D manages areas identified as having high and moderate potential for oil and gas,

including DDAs, using existing (Alternative A) management stipulations, except within the area

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 715

from Hudson to Atlantic City which is managed as NSO, a substantial adverse impact. Alternative

D would impose more restrictions on oil and gas development associated with greater sage-grouse

management in the Core Area than alternatives A and C, but fewer than Alternative B, depending

on existing surface disturbance, regardless of which program caused the disturbance. While

most areas with moderate and high potential for oil and gas are outside the Core Area, greater

sage-grouse management would adversely impact existing and projected oil and gas development.

The degree of this adverse impact can only be quantified on a site-specific basis, but management

under Alternative D could result in the relocation of or limitations to oil and gas development

because of existing, unreclaimed disturbance. For example, historic mining disturbances such

as uranium mines where sagebrush habitat had not been restored would be included in the

calculation for purposes of meeting the Alternative D 5-percent cap. This would be less adverse

than the 2.5-percent cap under Alternative B, but more adverse than alternatives A and C.

Required Design Features to reduce impacts to greater sage-grouse (both inside and outside of

Core Area) would adversely impact oil and gas development. However, the Required Design

Features would not be applied to existing leases, and exceptions would be allowed if the lease

holder were able to show that the Required Design Features would preclude development.

Additional BMPs identified for the benefit of greater sage-grouse would adversely impact oil and

gas if applied as COAs following site-specific analysis. The BMPs would be applied unless

technically unfeasible; the adverse impacts to oil and gas would be analyzed in site-specific

NEPA documents.

In many parts of the planning area, development activities are relocated for the protection of big

game winter range, raptor nesting areas, parturition areas, and special status wildlife. However,

resulting adverse impacts to oil and gas development under Alternative D would be more similar

to Alternative A than to Alternative B outside the Core Area. Some beneficial impacts would

result through the implementation of species-specific TLS for raptors compared to Alternative

B, but the impact of this management is generally not considered a beneficial impact unless it

results in changing overlapping TLS that would otherwise be NSOs. As under Alternative B,

Alternative D expands seasonal protections for wildlife to include O&M activities when they

would be detrimental to wildlife. This could result in an adverse economic impact to operators,

but is not considered an adverse impact to the oil and gas program because development would

not be precluded.

Cultural and paleontological resources management under Alternative D would adversely impact

oil and gas development although with fewer adverse impacts than under Alternative B. Most

other restrictions from cultural and paleontological resources protections would not be any more

restrictive or result in any more impacts than those under alternatives A and B.

VRM adversely impacts oil and gas development, as addressed under Alternative A, and

could result in substantial impacts in VRM Class I, II, and III areas. Alternative D includes

the second most areas managed with VRM objectives that could adversely impact oil and gas

development. This is especially true in connection with VRM objectives for Congressionally

Designated Trails (discussed below under Special Designations). Areas south of the Green

Mountain ACEC, including some of the proposed expanded ACEC under Alternative B, are NSO

because of steepness of slope, but primarily because of visual resources impacts due to their

highly prominent location.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
716 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.2.4.3.5.3. Resource Uses

In general, management for the development of resource uses under Alternative D would not

adversely impact oil and gas development, and there could be beneficial impacts in the form of

increased infrastructure such as roads and powerlines built to support non-oil and gas resource

use. The Alternative D application of seasonal limitations to mule deer winter habitat would be an

adverse impact, particularly with regard to the limitation on O&M. However, this adverse impact

would be limited to those areas with oil and gas potential, and much of the winter habitat is

outside of the areas of likely oil and gas development or in areas that are closed for the benefit

of other resources. However, in the greater sage-grouse Core Area, Alternative D restrictions

on surface disturbance by other uses such as phosphate leasing, uranium mines, ROW, and

extensive disturbance from rangeland improvement projects, would beneficially impact the oil

and gas development program because those restrictions reduce the amount of newly disturbed

acres that would be counted toward the disturbance cap applied to energy products such as oil

and gas. Alternative D includes more areas closed to non-oil and gas surface disturbance for

resource uses than Alternative A or C; therefore, Alternative D would result in more beneficial

impacts to oil and gas development than Alternative A or C. The extent of this beneficial impact

depends on the amount of development that might otherwise have occurred; these areas have little

potential. Management of uranium under Alternative D, however, is far less beneficial to oil and

gas than Alternative B, because moderate and high potential areas are not withdrawn under

Alternative D and could be developed and counted toward the 5 percent surface cap. In areas

such as near Green Mountain that contain both uranium and oil and gas potential and greater

sage-grouse Core Area, uranium mining could be a limiting factor for oil and gas development.

The State of Wyoming determined that development of the Lost Creek uranium mine that spans

the Lander and Rawlins field office boundaries, and is located in Core Area, was not precluded

by the Wyoming Governor’s Core Area Executive Order. Development of uranium resources

in the planning area is possible, although no Plan of Operations for a mine in Core Area has

been received by the BLM as of the date of this document. However, two Plans of Operation

are being analyzed under an EIS for uranium mining just outside Core Area, in lands that were

determined to be not suitable for inclusion in Core Area because of previous uranium mining

impacts to habitat. Both the existing disturbance and any disturbance authorized under these two

Plans of Operation would be included in disturbance cap analysis.

In restricting road and ROW development, Alternative D would adversely impact oil and gas

development by limiting the ability of operators to construct infrastructure and supply equipment

needed to support their operations. The limits on these uses adversely impacts oil and gas

development, although less so than the limits under Alternative B. Under Alternative D, the

designation of almost as many ROW corridors as Alternative C is not necessarily a benefit to the

oil and gas program if it limits the use of other ROW locations. However, BLM management

preference to co-locate new ROWs near existing disturbance already would limit complete

freedom of choice in ROW location. The Required Design Features described above for the

benefit of greater sage-grouse would further limit ROW development and adversely impact oil

and gas development. However, because the ROW restrictions are generally outside the areas

of moderate to high potential for oil and gas, these adverse impacts are likely to be moderate,

although higher than under either Alternative A or C.

Restrictions for handling produced water under Alternative D are the same as under alternatives A

and C, which manage produced water in accordance with regulations in Onshore Oil and Gas

Order Number 7, Disposal of Produced Water (Alternative A restrictions). This would result in

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 717

fewer adverse impacts to oil and gas development than Alternative B, which could make new

development in areas with low and very low potential for oil and gas less likely. The costs of

handling produced water could still make new discovery uneconomical or be a disincentive to

develop, resulting in the loss of recoverable reserves. The Required Design Features associated

with produced water identified above would adversely limit oil and gas development, but would

not preclude surface disposal.

Management of resource uses that could limit oil and gas development include ROWs and

corridors, livestock grazing, and recreation. As previously discussed, in the greater sage-grouse

Core Area, any surface disturbance from resource uses that contributes to the 5 percent cap has the

potential to adversely impact the oil and gas program by making it more likely that caps would

preclude oil and gas development. The disturbance caps include disturbances not permitted by the

BLM, such as disturbances on private or state lands and county roads.

Outside the greater sage-grouse Core Area, Alternative D impacts to the oil and gas program

would be similar to the impacts identified for Alternative A although some Required Design

Features apply outside of Core Area. Alternative D includes more acres closed for the benefit

of recreation, which would result in the same adverse impacts to oil and gas development as

those closures under Alternative B.

Under Alternative D, additional recreation areas and SRMAs would increase adverse impacts to

oil and gas development. Recreation management under Alternative D limits mineral and realty

actions within existing recreation sites identified in Alternative A and the following additional

sites that are managed as closed to leasing: Castle Gardens Archeology Site (78 acres), Devils

Gate Interpretive Site (112 acres), Martins Cove Trail (927 acres), Split Rock Rest Interpretive Site

(242 acres), and Steamboat Lake Overlook (128 acres). These designated recreation sites are small

and oil and gas resources could be developed through directional drilling techniques. Therefore,

the impact to oil and gas development from management of recreation resource uses would be

small. These recreation areas are in areas with very low or no potential for oil and gas; therefore,

they would result in negligible impacts to overall oil and gas development in the planning area.

4.2.4.3.5.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative D, management of the NTMC would have adverse impacts to the oil and

gas program through NSO management. However, these adverse impacts are limited by the

extremely low oil and gas potential. The limited nature of these impacts is not a function of limits

in technology, but because the geologic formations make it unlikely that oil and gas is present.

Because of limited potential, the adverse impacts of NSO management would be very similar to

the impacts under Alternative A, and much less adverse than under Alternative B.

Under Alternative D, resource values managed as special designations would adversely impact oil

and gas development in the planning area depending on the type of special designation. In the

existing ACECs redesignated under Alternative D, the adverse impacts would be the same as

under Alternative A because the same oil and gas management is applied, except for the Dubois

ACEC, which would be closed to oil and gas. These impacts are more adverse than Alternative

C but limited in scope to those ACECs having more than very low oil and gas potential. In

those ACECs that are expanded in size from under Alternative A, the adverse impact would be

correspondingly greater. However, the adverse impact would likely be limited because the oil

and gas potential in areas with ACECs is low to none, except for the Green Mountain ACEC.

In the Dubois area, the impacts under Alternative D would be more adverse because the entire

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
718 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

area including the special designation areas are closed to leasing. In Dubois, the adverse impacts

would be comparable to those under Alternative B. Alternative D manages two NWSRS-eligible

waterways as suitable WSRs, but this would not adversely affect oil and gas development because

only 1⁄4 mile on each side of the segment is NSO for oil and gas. The NWSRS-eligible segments

are in areas with low or no potential for oil and gas, but they likely could be directionally drilled

to recover any oil and gas resources.

Alternative D expands the Green Mountain ACEC over Alternative A but less than Alternative B.

The acres that were not designated under Alternative D would be managed as open to oil and gas

subject to an NSO stipulation. For the Green Mountain ACEC, the adverse impacts to the oil

and gas program would be the same under Alternative D as B.

Alternative D conducted an MLP analysis of the Beaver Rim area, a portion of which would be

designated as the expanded Beaver Rim ACEC under Alternative B. The MLP analysis authorized

leasing with surface occupancy but would provide additional protections for visual resources

and Native American sacred sites. These resource protections would have moderately adverse

impacts to oil and gas but much less adverse than the closure of the Beaver Rim area to oil

and gas leasing under Alternative B.

4.2.5. Leasable Minerals – Oil Shale-Tar Sands

In 2008, the BLM released a PEIS for Oil Shale and Tar Sands (BLM 2008c) that amended

existing plans for Wyoming and other states. The only areas of Wyoming addressed in the

Programmatic EIS were the Washakie and Green River Basins in the southwestern part of the state.

The southern edge of the planning area was included as oil shale-tar sands resources; however, the

area identified is not considered economically feasible to produce. Additional evaluation and an

RMP amendment would be required for the exploration, development, and leasing of oil shale in

the planning area. Therefore, impacts to oil shale-tar sands from management of other resources

are not analyzed. The same approach to leasing identified for coal leasing would be applied; that

is, to determine if the application met the broad programmatic goals sufficiently to warrant being

analyzed in an RMP amendment, or whether it would be denied without further analysis.

4.2.6. Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals

The only solid leasable mineral with substantial occurrence and development potential in the

planning area is phosphate. Therefore the discussion is restricted to that mineral. Phosphate is

only present in the Permian-age Phosphoria Formation and equivalent beds that crop out along the

eastern edge of the Wind River Range uplift. Smaller exposures of Phosphoria strata also occur in

several isolated areas in the planning area where deformation has uplifted the host formation such

as the Sheep Mountain and Conant Creek anticlines, Crooks Mountain near Happy Springs, the

Owl Creek Mountains between Copper Mountain and Lysite Mountain, and other scattered areas

east of the Wind River Range in the Dubois area.

4.2.6.1. Summary of Impacts

Phosphate resources occur in three main areas in the planning area, and impacts are clear

where land use decisions have resulted in designations as either open or closed to solid mineral

leasing. Impacts due to seasonal or CSU restrictions are less clear because there has not been

any phosphate or other solid mineral leasing activity during the last planning cycle, and the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Oil Shale-Tar Sands February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 719

impacts of such restrictions are not understood. Unlike locatable minerals, the decision to make

solid leasable mineral resources available for exploration and development at BLM discretion,

and the intersection of areas closed or open to phosphate leasing with known areas of phosphate

occurrence potential is paramount to understanding impacts to phosphate resources. The

alternatives vary in the acres open or closed to phosphate exploration and leasing. Table 4.19,

“Phosphate Potential” (p. 719) displays how many acres of mineral estate with phosphate

potential are open or closed to phosphate leasing under the alternatives.

Table 4.19. Phosphate Potential

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres of Phosphate

with Development

Potential

42,291 42,291 42,291 42,291

Acres of Phosphate

with Development

Potential-Open

32,244 2,699 40,570 127

Acres of Phosphate

with Development

Potential-Closed

10,047 39,592 1,721 42,164

Source: BLM 2012a

Phosphate potential (as defined under Methods and Assumptions) in the planning area comprises

lands totaling 42,291 surface acres and 60,374 acres of subsurface mineral estate. Under

Alternative A, approximately 9,600 acres are specifically closed in the National Natural

Landmark (NNL) and the crucial elk winter range in the Red Canyon ACEC. Of this, 86 percent

of the acres have phosphate potential. Alternative B closes 39,592 acres of land with phosphate

potential (approximately 94 percent of the potential), while Alternative C closes only 1,721 acres.

Alternative D would result in the largest adverse impact to developing the known phosphate

resource, followed by Alternative B. Under the restrictions imposed under Alternative B, there

is little likelihood that any exploration or development of phosphate resources would occur

anywhere because most of the reserves would be precluded from development. Impacts to

phosphate development under Alternative D are approximately that of Alternative B.

The 1,721 acres closed under Alternative C would not be likely to have any substantial bearing

on the likelihood of phosphate development. For example, although the acreage of phosphate

resource closure under Alternative A is more than under Alternative C, because the closure

to phosphate development under Alternative A represents one specific area (Red Canyon) the

likelihood of this closure resulting in any material impacts to phosphate development would be

small to none.

4.2.6.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Solid mineral exploration activity can take place under either prospecting permits, an

exploration license, or by acquiring a lease either by preference right or competitive bidding.

Potential operators must obtain a prospecting permit, an exploration license, or a lease from

the BLM Wyoming State Office before commencing operations. In the case of prospecting

permits or exploration licenses, operators must submit a detailed exploration plan that meets

the standards at 43 CFR 3505.45, and the exploration proposal must be analyzed under the

NEPA process. Before performing any operations under any solid mineral lease, the operator

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals
720 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

must submit an operating plan in accordance with 43 CFR 3592.1, and operations proposals

must be analyzed under the NEPA process. The surface-disturbing activities allowed (short

of an actual mine development) and the resulting impacts to resources are not necessarily,

by definition, different under either method.

● Management resulting from the regulatory requirements for cultural resources and threatened

and endangered species consultations is identical under all alternatives; these requirements are

outside the realm of RMP decision making.

● The BLM issues prospecting permits to explore for leasable mineral deposits on lands where

the BLM has determined that prospecting is necessary to determine the existence of a valuable

deposit. Applications for prospecting permits are also subject to review for conformance to

land use plans, environmental requirements, and unsuitability criteria; therefore, the BLM

decision to approve a prospecting permit application is completely at BLM discretion. The

total acreage allowed under a phosphate prospecting permit is limited to 2,560 acres; the BLM

will not issue prospecting permits if the applicant’s phosphate holdings in permits and licenses

exceed 20,480 acres nationwide. Prospecting permits for phosphate are issued for an initial

2-year term and could be extended for up to 4 years. The permittee may only remove enough

material to prove the existence of a valuable mineral deposit.

● A proven discovery of a valuable deposit of phosphate under a prospecting permit entitles

the permittee to a preference right lease. The BLM issues the lease for a period of 20 years

subject to readjustment at the end of the 20-year period. The BLM could reject a preference

right lease application if it is determined that mining is not the preferred use of the lands in the

application. In making this determination, the BLM considers land use plans, unsuitability

criteria, any environmental impacts, the purpose of the statute under which the lands were

acquired, and whether the surface-management agency (if not the BLM) does not consent

to a lease.

● The BLM grants an exploration license only to explore known and unleased phosphate

deposits to obtain geologic and environmental information about the deposits. Exploration

licenses are granted for a period of 2 years and may not be extended. Upon expiration, the

former licensee may apply for a new exploration permit. Exploration licenses confer no right

to lease, regardless of the outcome of the exploration effort regarding discovery of phosphate

mineralization. Similar to prospecting permits, the BLM decision to approve an exploration

license application is completely at BLM discretion.

● Phosphate leases of any type are issued only for lands where the BLM has determined there is

a valuable mineral deposit (e.g., in a known leasing area [KLA]), or where prospecting has

proven the existence of a valuable mineral deposit. The availability of solid leasable minerals

outside existing lease rights are subject to BLM discretion.

● In areas where fluid mineral leasing is stipulated with an NSO, it is assumed that solid mineral

leasing would carry the same stipulations. Because exploration mostly requires occupancy of

the surface, and surface mining is the preferred method of phosphate development because of

the configuration of deposits in the planning area, any NSO stipulation would effectively close

the area to phosphate exploration or mining.

● Competitive lease sales may be initiated by an expression(s) of interest or on BLM motion and

are issued for areas where there is a known deposit of a valuable leasable mineral. Prospecting

permits are not allowed in such areas, but exploration licenses may be granted. Areas held

under a lease are limited to 2,560 acres, and lessees are limited to a maximum of 20,480 acres

under permits and leases nationwide. Leases will not be issued for unsurveyed lands.

● The Phosphate Leasing Handbook (H-3510-1) states that permits shall not be issued to

prospect in Congressionally designated wilderness areas or BLM WSAs, or in an ACEC.

The handbook does not address the application of these restrictions to exploration licenses

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 721

or competitive leasing. However, the solid mineral leasing regulations (43 CFR 3503.10)

state that the Secretary of the Interior may not lease lands the surface-management agency

recommends for wilderness allocation, lands in BLM WSAs, or lands in Congressionally

designated wilderness areas. Therefore, while not specifically mentioning ACECs, the BLM

assumes that new competitive leases, because they can be issued only in KLAs, would not be

within the boundaries of an ACEC. Any lease predating the designation of an ACEC would be

subject to prior existing rights and would be valid. ACEC management, however, is required

to address phosphate leasing for self-nominated parcels.

● Solid minerals development projects that meet certain thresholds in the BLM Department

Manual (BLM 2008d), or would result in impacts that cannot be mitigated (making a

Finding of No Significant Impact not possible), require NEPA analysis in an EIS. The cost

of preparing an EIS is borne by the licensee, permittee, or lease applicant, as required by

current cost-recovery regulations.

● Phosphate is the only solid leasable mineral specifically analyzed because there is little

information about occurrence of other solid leasable minerals such as salts of sodium (e.g.,

trona) or potassium (potash). The restrictions and impacts to other solid leasable minerals

from management of resources and resource uses are assumed to be the same restrictions and

impacts to phosphate resources. All solid leasable minerals are managed under the same

regulations and have the same requirements for development. However, specific impacts to

solid leasable minerals other than phosphate cannot be determined because the occurrence

of such minerals across the planning area is not clear. If the BLM receives applications for

other solid leasable minerals, the agency would follow the process identified for coal leasing.

That is, the agency would determine if the application warrants being considered for an RMP

amendment or denied as not meeting the programmatic values identified for the area. Because

phosphate is the only solid leasable mineral analyzed, the term “solid mineral leasable” in

this document generally refers to phosphate.

● The occurrence potential for phosphate in the planning area as discussed in the Mineral

Occurrence and Development Potential Report for the Lander Planning Area (BLM 2009b),

is assigned a rating of high with a certainty level of D (H/D). However, only the following

phosphate resources are considered to have phosphate potential for the purposes of this

analysis: (1) the phosphate resources rated high in favorability and shown on Figure 4-1 of

the Mineral Report and (2) the phosphate potential classified as surface resources south and

southeast of the Wind River Indian Reservation (WRIR) boundary as shown on Figure 3-9 of

the Mineral Report, which includes the part of the phosphate resource from the surface to a

depth of 600 feet below land surface (Map 19).

● The potential for phosphate exploration and development is anticipated to be low for the next

planning cycle because of the relative thinness of phosphate beds, thickness of overburden,

low to moderate grade of phosphate (compared to viable deposits elsewhere in the western

phosphate field), and distance to processing facilities in the planning area.

4.2.6.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.2.6.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The analysis of impacts from management decisions are limited to impacts to areas where solid

mineral potential has been identified. Without potential being identified, the impacts from

management cannot be analyzed.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals
722 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Adverse impacts to exploration and development of solid leasable minerals could result when

seasonal timing limitations apply for the protection of wildlife. The intensity of impacts is

anticipated to vary by alternative and be proportional to actual demand. It follows that impacts

would be potentially greater when there are restrictions on areas with high occurrence or potential

than in areas of moderate to low occurrence or potential.

Restrictions on development of solid leasable minerals adversely impact exploration and

development activities when locatable minerals are withdrawn because the Lander Field Office

manages solid leasable minerals in the withdrawn areas as closed to leasing. The intensity

of impacts anticipated from locatable mineral withdrawal vary by alternative and would be

proportional to actual demand. It follows that impacts would be potentially greater when there

are withdrawals in areas with high occurrence or potential than in areas of moderate to low

occurrence or potential.

Beneficial impacts to solid leasable minerals result from management actions that open access to

federal mineral estate, including allowing post-FLPMA withdrawals or segregations to expire

without seeking new withdrawals or segregations.

Under all alternatives, activities related to solid leasable minerals prospecting, exploration, and

development are subject to site‐specific analysis before approval. Approval of such activities

under any permit, license, or lease would require appropriate mitigation and site‐specific

reclamation based on a current mining and reclamation plan. Mitigation and a site‐specific

reclamation measures could prescribe certain activities or mitigation measures that could reduce

the economic viability of a mining proposal and result in indirect adverse impacts to operators

(e.g., the application of standard mitigation guidelines such as slope restrictions, riparian-wetland

setbacks, and timing restrictions to protect BLM-sensitive species). These impacts would vary

by alternative.

Under all alternatives, pre-FLPMA (1976) withdrawals do not expire and can be retired only

through Congressional action. Accordingly, these withdrawals do not vary by alternative.

Withdrawals protect other resource values or public investments (e.g., campgrounds) and these

objectives are equally important when considering solid leasable minerals. These pre-FLPMA

withdrawals are not addressed further in this section.

There are no designated WSAs in the planning area with phosphate potential.

4.2.6.3.2. Alternative A

4.2.6.3.2.1. Program Management

Alternative A closes approximately 10,047 acres to phosphate exploration and development,

which would impact approximately 24 percent of the area with phosphate potential. This closure

would prohibit prospecting permits, exploration licenses, and any type of leasing activity. Under

Alternative A, the majority of land with phosphate potential would remain open to phosphate

development activity.

4.2.6.3.2.2. Resources

For the protection of geologic and visual resources, Alternative A closes approximately 1,440

acres of land with phosphate potential in Red Canyon NNL.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 723

Soil protections under Alternative A prohibit surface disturbance on slopes greater than 25

percent, which is approximately a 14 degree slope. Unless phosphate mining would occur entirely

underground with no or minimal need for surface occupancy, small areas along the Wind River

Range front would not be available to phosphate development due to slope restrictions. Most of

the dip slope along the range front is situated at approximately 12 degrees, but the flanks of stream

canyons exceed 25 percent; therefore, phosphate mining in these areas would be prohibited under

Alternative A. In addition, approximately 10 percent of the Sheep Mountain and Conant Creek

anticlines is effectively closed to surface activity due to slope restrictions under Alternative A.

Alternative A prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of surface water,

riparian-wetland areas, playas, and 100-year floodplains. These prohibitions would affect

phosphate mining on the flanks of stream canyons along the Wind River Range front, but would

have little impact on the Sheep Mountain or Conant Creek anticlines.

Alternative A specifically closes approximately 1,375 acres of land with phosphate potential in

the Red Canyon area because of wildlife concerns related to elk crucial winter range. In addition,

virtually all of the phosphate potential in the Dubois area along the Wind River Range front

carries NSO stipulations for oil and gas, which apply to solid mineral leasing as well. Because

of the mineral withdrawals in the Dubois area (Whiskey Mountain and East Fork) to benefit

wildlife such as bighorn sheep and elk (see Table 4.15, “Acreage of Withdrawals for the Benefit

of Habitat, Cultural or Recreational Values” (p. 681) in the Locatable Minerals section), it is not

likely that phosphate leasing would be allowed in these areas either.

Heritage/cultural concerns in areas with phosphate potential under Alternative A include a

mineral withdrawal in Warm Springs Canyon of 557 acres. It is not clear whether this withdrawal

specifically applies to solid mineral leasing, but because such leasing is discretionary, it is not

likely that leasing would be allowed in withdrawn areas.

4.2.6.3.2.3. Resource Uses

There are very few resource uses that would adversely impact phosphate resource development.

Management for locatable minerals has an undefined adverse impact on the availability of

phosphate resources for exploration and development. The number of valid mining claims that

encumber lands with phosphate potential is not known and frequently changes. However, because

of the occurrence potential for locatable minerals which has little if any tie to the Phosphoria

Formation, there is little coincidence of overlapping claims with phosphate resources.

Realty management under Alternative A has somewhat adverse impacts to the phosphate program

in that there are no designated corridors in areas that would facilitate phosphate development

and the South Pass, Lander Slope, and Red Canyon areas are avoided for major ROWs such as

would be helpful to support phosphate mining. Although much of the Phosphoria Formation is

accessible using existing county roads, limitations to protect ACEC values could result in adverse

impacts. See the discussion below under special designations.

There are no recreation-related withdrawals or management actions that would impact this

program area under Alternative A other than those common to all alternatives.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals
724 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.2.6.3.2.4. Special Designations

NWSRS-eligible waterway segments do not intersect areas with phosphate potential, with the

exception of a few tens of acres along Baldwin Creek that already carry NSO stipulations. Impacts

to phosphate development from WSR management under Alternative A would be low to none.

Under Alternative A, designation of ACECs does not specifically close areas to phosphate

development. However, because of the extremely high coincidence of ACECs with lands carrying

phosphate potential, and the NSO management for ACECs with phosphate potential, most land

with phosphate potential in the planning area is unavailable for surface exploration or surface

mining.

4.2.6.3.3. Alternative B

4.2.6.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B would result in the second most adverse impacts to phosphate development of all

of the alternatives. Under Alternative B, 39,592 acres of surface estate are specifically closed

to phosphate development in areas of phosphate potential. This is equal to 94 percent of the

phosphate potential in the planning area.

4.2.6.3.3.2. Resources

Alternative B includes the same protection of the Red Canyon NNL as Alternative A, so the

adverse impacts to solid mineral leasing are the same from this resource.

Soil protections under Alternative B include substantially more acres than Alternative A. Unless

phosphate mining would take place entirely underground with no or minimal need for surface

occupancy, most of the phosphate potential along the Wind River Range front would not be

available to phosphate development due to the 15 percent slope restriction alone, because

almost the entire dip slope along the Wind River Range front exceeds 15 percent. In addition,

approximately 60 percent of the phosphate potential at Sheep Mountain and Conant Creek

anticlines is effectively closed to surface activity under Alternative B due to slope restrictions,

rather than 10 percent under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, all the Dubois area north of the

WRIR with phosphate potential have NSO stipulations because of slope restrictions. Impacts

from management in the Dubois area would differ little from those under Alternative A, because

it is not likely that Alternative A would allow surface mining due to resource conflicts.

Alternative B manages the Little Red Creek Complex for wilderness characteristics and closes

it to solid mineral leasing, which would result in more adverse impacts than Alternative A,

which has no such limits. However, it is likely that under Alternative A the BLM would not

authorize leases in the Little Red Creek Complex because of its proximity and overlap with the

Whiskey Mountain ACEC.

Alternative B protections for riparian-wetland areas, while more stringent than Alternative

A protections, would result in only slightly more adverse impacts because there is only a

small increase in acreage compared to the total amount of phosphate potential away from

riparian-wetland areas.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 725

Wildlife management under Alternative B would result in more adverse impacts to solid mineral

leasing than Alternative A because Alternative B limits development of roads in crucial winter

range or parturition areas. However, this impact would be wholly contained in areas managed

under Alternative B as special designations and closed to solid mineral leasing.

Heritage/cultural concerns in areas with phosphate potential under Alternative B include increased

closure acreage in Warm Springs Canyon (totaling 834 acres), which would result in greater

adverse impacts to the small amount of phosphate potential compared to Alternative A, which

includes only 577 acres of withdrawal.

4.2.6.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Restrictions to phosphate development in areas of travel management are discussed above in

relation to the resource values driving travel management decisions.

Under Alternative B, ROW management would have important adverse impacts to phosphate

development because of the ROW exclusions surrounding most areas having phosphate potential.

South Pass is closed to new ROWs which would limit the ability to develop phosphate leases.

These impacts are relatively unimportant, however, because of Alternative B closes areas with

potential for phosphate development. While leasing with some restrictions is possible under

Alternative A albeit not likely, Alternative B would result in far more adverse impacts.

4.2.6.3.3.4. Special Designations

Although Alternative B manages more NWSRS-eligible waterway segments as suitable for

inclusion in the NWSRS than Alternative A, this difference is not substantial because all of the

segments managed under Alternative B are in areas closed to solid mineral leasing through

ACEC management.

Under Alternative B, ACEC management would result in substantially more adverse impacts to

solid mineral leasing from closures in ACECs and NSO areas. The exact acreage that intersect

phosphate potential is not calculated, but there would be substantially more adverse impacts to

phosphate availability under Alternative B than under Alternative A. The adverse impacts in the

Lander Slope, Red Canyon, and Whiskey Mountain areas would be similar to that of Alternative

A because these ACECs remain the same in acreage. However, adverse impacts in the East Fork

area would likely increase because more acreage would be unavailable under Alternative B. The

biggest difference would be in the NHT and the greater sage-grouse ACECs, where there would

be adverse impacts to a substantially larger area of phosphate potential because of the expansion

of these ACECs under Alternative B. The 16-fold increase in acreage would likely adversely

impact phosphate development proportionally in the area of phosphate potential from Schoettlin

Mountain south to the planning area boundary.

4.2.6.3.4. Alternative C

4.2.6.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C would result in the fewest adverse impacts to phosphate development in the

planning area of all the alternatives. Under Alternative C, only 1,721 acres of surface estate and

2,300 acres of subsurface mineral estate are specifically closed to phosphate development in

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals
726 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

areas of phosphate potential. This results in almost the entire area of phosphate potential in the

planning area being open to phosphate development activities.

4.2.6.3.4.2. Resources

Soil and riparian-wetland area protections under Alternative C are the same as under Alternative

A, which is less adverse to solid mineral leasing than Alternative B. These prohibitions (due

mostly to slope restrictions) would be exercised only on the flanks of stream canyons along

the Wind River Range front and would result in little adverse impact, including in the Sheep

Mountain or Conant Creek anticlines.

Adverse impacts to phosphate availability would be reduced under Alternative C compared to

Alternative B, which closes most of the resource along the Wind River Range. The remaining

restrictions due to wildlife concerns that could impact phosphate availability would not affect

areas with phosphate potential, except for approximately 300 acres in various scattered places

in the planning area.

There would be no impacts due to heritage/cultural concerns in areas with phosphate potential

under Alternative C, a less adverse impact to phosphate development than Alternative A

or Alternative B because the potential number of acres under Alternative C is very small

(approximately 577 acres in the Warm Springs Canyon near Dubois).

4.2.6.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative C, there would be no impacts to phosphate resources from recreation

management because restrictions due to recreation protections would not intersect phosphate

resources. There would be no impacts to phosphate availability from trails and travel

management, because areas closed to motorized travel and with seasonal travel limitations would

not coincide with areas of phosphate potential.

Alternative C would have the fewest limitations on phosphate development through ROW

management. The South Pass area contains a designated ROW corridor and no limitation on

other ROWs. Phosphate development and the infrastructure required for it would be beneficially

impacted by ROW management, in contrast to the severe restrictions in Alternative B.

4.2.6.3.4.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative C, no NWSRS-eligible waterway segments would be recommended for

inclusion in the NWSRS. Therefore, adverse impacts to phosphate availability, while small in

these areas under any alternative, would be the smallest under Alternative C.

Alternative C does not contain any ACEC designations, which would result in a substantial

beneficial impact to the availability of phosphate resources compared to Alternative B, effectively

opening most of the highest-quality phosphate resources along the Wind River Range front.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 727

4.2.6.3.5. Alternative D

4.2.6.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D would result in the most adverse impacts to phosphate development in the planning

area of all the alternatives. Though the closed acreage is much greater under Alternative B, the

affected phosphate resources are almost the same because of where specifically the closures occur

under alternatives D and B. Under Alternative D, 42,164 acres of surface estate and 60,212

acres of subsurface mineral estate are specifically closed to phosphate development in areas of

phosphate potential. All of the available phosphate resource in the Townships 40 and 41 (north of

the Lysite DDA and the Dubois area) and the Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area are closed

to leasing; this includes almost all identified phosphate in the planning area.

4.2.6.3.5.2. Resources

In addition to limits on solid mineral leasing, resource protections for the benefit of other values

would further limit phosphate development. Soils would be subject to about the same adverse

impacts as under alternatives A and C, with slightly more adverse impacts to soils with slopes

between 15 and 24 percent, where conditions over and above standard stipulations could be

applied. These restrictions could require more mitigation or relocation of facilities, but would not

necessarily preclude solid minerals leasing.

Protections of sole-source aquifers and groundwater recharge areas and other water quality and

riparian-wetland protections would provide no additional limits on phosphate leasing, because all

identified areas would already be closed to leasing for the protection of other resources because

surface occupancy is not allowed. Alternatives A and C do not include these protections, and

would result in fewer impacts.

The closure for the protection of wildlife and special status species under Alternative D includes

the area managed under that alternative as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, unlike

alternatives A and C, which manage the Little Red Creek Complex with standard stipulations.

In addition to adverse impacts to solid mineral leasing for the protection of wildlife common to

all alternatives, Alternative D would result in the same highly adverse impacts to solid mineral

leasing as Alternative B by closing the Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City and other areas. Like

Alternative B, impacts to solid mineral leasing under Alternative D would be somewhat more

adverse than under Alternative A and substantially more adverse than under Alternative C, which

allows solid mineral leasing with standard stipulations on 40,570 acres with phosphate potential.

Alternative D applies timing restrictions for the protection of spawning fish, but would not

adversely impact solid mineral leasing. Therefore, Alternative D would not result in more adverse

impacts than Alternative C, which applies no seasonal restrictions.

Although Alternative D includes the fewest restrictions on the use of chemical vegetation

treatments in sensitive plant populations, this would not impact solid mineral leasing because

leasing in areas with those plants would not be allowed under any alternative.

Wildlife management, including management for the protection of greater sage-grouse and other

resource values (e.g., cultural and viewshed resources) would result in the same adverse impacts

to solid mineral leasing as Alternative B, and substantially more than alternatives A and C. Core

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals
728 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Area management would apply to phosphate leases, but this would not, by itself, have any impact

because phosphate potential in Core Area would be closed to leasing for broad resource values,

rather than just limited to greater sage-grouse management.

Alternative D management of reptile habitat would be slightly more adverse to solid mineral

leasing than Alternative A or Alternative C, and substantially less adverse than Alternative B,

although reptile habitat outside of the broader resource protection area closed to phosphate

leasing has not been mapped.

Alternative D management to protect the cultural resources in the Warm Springs Flume Site has

the same adverse impacts to solid mineral leasing as Alternative B and fewer adverse impacts

than alternatives A and C. Solid mineral potential is believed to be low, so there is little difference

among the alternatives.

VRM could adversely impact solid mineral leasing on a site-specific basis. Alternative D

manages 40,671 acres with phosphate occurrence potential that have VRM Classes I or II, which

would make it unlikely that surface mining would be allowed. This is similar to the impact under

Alternative B and slightly more adverse than the impact under Alternative A. All alternatives

would result in substantially more adverse impacts than Alternative C, which manages 10,950

acres with phosphate potential with VRM Class IV.

4.2.6.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Differences in management of resource uses across the other alternatives appear to result in no

difference in impact as compared to Alternative D because phosphate resources are not generally

involved. For example, although Alternative D closes more acreage for recreation/interpretive

sites common to all alternatives (same as Alternative B), these sites are not identified as having

phosphate potential and this would be an adverse impact. Alternative D withdrawal of the Johnny

Behind the Rock area would have the effect of closing the area to solid mineral leasing, but

because there is no identified phosphate potential, there would be no adverse impact to solid

minerals program.

Under Alternative D, ROW management would have similar adverse impacts to phosphate leasing

as Alternative B, which are far more adverse than either Alternative A or C. Most of the ROW

actions needed to support phosphate development would be precluded by Alternative D with the

same adverse impacts as Alternative B. However, in light of the extensive closures of areas

with phosphate potential to leasing in Alternative D, these additional ROW restrictions would

not have further adverse impacts.

4.2.6.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative D manages the NTMC as closed to phosphate leasing. However, areas with phosphate

potential would have been closed by the broad phosphate closure for the benefit of wildlife

analyzed above.

Management of river segments suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS would result in no additional

adverse impacts to the solid mineral program because the eligible segments are in areas closed to

solid mineral leasing to protect other values.

Alternative D management of ACECs and the areas proposed as ACECs under other alternatives

would result in more adverse impacts to solid mineral leasing than management under Alternative

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 729

A and substantially more than under Alternative C, and very similar to Alternative B. However,

these areas would have been closed to solid mineral leasing to protect other values, even in

the absence of ACEC designation.

4.2.7. Salable Minerals

Salable minerals (mineral materials) include sand, gravel, decorative stone such as common

granite or moss rock, and other mineral materials not subject to mineral leasing or location under

the mining laws. The BLM's principal authority to dispose of such materials is the Materials Act

of 1947, as amended (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), which applies to sale and free use of the subject

materials. The BLM has the most flexibility in managing mineral material disposals of any

mineral activity because salable minerals are readily available throughout the planning area and

conflict with other resources can generally be avoided while still meeting demand.

4.2.7.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternative B has the most adverse impacts to mineral material disposals because the most lands

are closed to disposals. Alternative D has the next greatest impacts in that ACEC and other

areas of importance to resources such as the portions of the Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City

area outside of ACECs that are closed to disposal for the benefit of a broad range of resources.

Alternative A has the next to the least adverse impacts. It does not specifically close ACECs to

mineral materials disposal, but the BLM management approach is to disallow mineral materials

developments because of incompatibility with management of other resource values, such

as the designation of ACECs. Alternative C which places no restrictions on disposals other

than standard stipulations has the fewest adverse impacts particularly with regard to ACECs

in comparison to other alternatives. However, under all alternatives, it is anticipated that the

demand for mineral material disposals will be satisfied although it may be necessary to transport

the materials over a longer distance because more convenient sites are closed, particularly in

Alternative B. Transporting mineral materials over longer distances would adversely impact other

programs such as health and safety (more accidents), air quality (more vehicle emissions), and

wildlife and livestock (more road kills), as well as substantially increasing the delivered cost

of the material at the point of use.

Alternative C has the most beneficial impacts to mineral materials by allowing ROWs for roads

and utilities in more areas and with fewer restrictions on size, which beneficially impacts access

to mineral materials. It has the least restrictive VRM and the fewest protections for wildlife

although its management of greater sage-grouse is the same as Alternative A. Alternative A

has somewhat fewer beneficial impacts because of ACEC management. Alternative D has less

beneficial impacts because resources such as greater sage-grouse, visual resources, and cultural

properties are given emphasis in some areas and ACECs are closed to mineral material disposal as

well as the Dubois area. Alternative B has the fewest beneficial impacts because so much of the

planning area is closed to disposal.

4.2.7.2. Methods and Assumptions

This analysis is based on occurrence potential for mineral materials as identified in the Mineral

Occurrence and Development Potential Report for the Lander Planning Area (BLM 2009b).

“Potential” refers to the potential for or the presence (occurrence) of a concentration of one or

more mineral resources. It does not refer to or imply potential for development and/or extraction

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Salable Minerals
730 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

of the mineral resource(s). It does not imply that the potential concentration is or could be

extracted profitably. The mineral potential classification system is based on the level of potential

and the level of certainty of data supporting the possible existence of minerals. The level of

potential is classified as None (O), Low (L), Moderate (M), High (H), or Not Determined (ND).

The level of certainty is classified as A (lowest certainty), B, C, or D (highest certainty).

Implementation of management actions under the alternatives could result in impacts that open,

limit, or deny access to and disposal of mineral materials from public lands in the planning area.

Adverse impacts to mineral materials disposal could result from management actions that restrict

or limit mineral materials disposals, or that place specific stipulations or mitigation requirements

on development activity. Conversely, beneficial impacts to mineral materials disposal could result

from management that encourages these activities by relaxing stipulations or opening areas to

disposal. To the extent that management actions streamline the processing of applications, those

actions would result in beneficial impacts, although this is not strictly an environmental impact.

In the planning area, land use decisions generally affect mineral materials disposal less than

other non-mineral resources and other resource uses, primarily because of the ubiquitous

nature of mineral materials occurrence and the relatively low demand for mineral materials

from public lands. Most adverse impacts to mineral materials disposals are short-term (e.g.,

seasonal restrictions to protect wildlife, seasonal road closures, and delays resulting from the

requirement for cultural resource surveys before the BLM issues permits. Long-term impacts

include restricting or closing certain areas to mineral materials disposal to protect higher-value

resources, or transferring federal mineral estate to private ownership through realty transfers or

sales, thereby potentially removing the mineral materials resources from public access.

The BLM has discretionary authority to permit mineral materials disposals. It may choose to

approve or disapprove such sales or permits, case by case, in the planning area. In accordance with

regulations at 43 CFR 3601.10-11, the BLM will not dispose of mineral materials if it determines

that the aggregate damage to public lands and resources would exceed the public benefits the

BLM expects from the proposed disposal. Consistent with 43 CFR 3601.12, the BLM also will

not dispose of mineral materials from wilderness areas, or other areas expressively prohibited

by law, including national parks and monuments. The BLM also will not dispose of mineral

materials from areas identified in land use plans as not appropriate for mineral materials disposal.

It is assumed that wherever NSO stipulations apply for oil and gas leases, the area is managed as

closed to mineral materials disposals. This management was established in the 1987 RMP and

carried forward. In all alternatives, it is assumed that if resource values exist that justify NSO for

oil and gas operations, then mineral material disposal would be directed to another location.

Generally, a withdrawal closes lands to the exercise of discretion to dispose of mineral materials

only if the Secretary of the Interior intends that result, usually by an express reference in the

withdrawals. Case law has established that pre-FLPMA withdrawals or segregations that closed

land to the operation of the public land laws, including the mineral leasing laws either expressly

or by interpretation, also closed land to the Materials Act. Any other withdrawal or segregation

has no impact on the Materials Act. Current BLM policy is to not use FLPMA withdrawals

to close land to discretionary action, but to exercise this discretion through land use planning

decisions. In any case, it is assumed for purposes of analysis that all mineral withdrawals apply to

mineral materials disposals.

In most cases, demand for mineral materials during the planning period will be directly

proportional to the rate of other resource development in a given area. Based on data collected

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Salable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 731

for the period 1989 through 2009, mineral materials disposals have averaged 183 acres per year

throughout the planning area. This value is likely high because the data from this period include

multiple large sales related to Abandoned Mine Land (AML) projects in the Gas Hills that will

likely not be repeated. However, for purposes of analysis, it is assumed that the activity related to

mineral materials disposals will continue at a similar rate for the next planning cycle because

it would be speculative to arbitrarily reduce the activity by some amount, and other types of

development (e.g., oil and gas and ROWs) are increasing.

The BLM does not guarantee access through private surface. Where the BLM cannot grant access

across the public lands to a mineral materials site due to legal barriers such as ESA restrictions,

the purchaser will need to obtain access through non-federal land.

The BLM will not sell soil that is essential for the growth of vegetation at the site of disposal.

There is potential for mineral materials occurrences across the planning area, and the principal

mineral material occurrence types will continue to be sand and gravel, limestone, shale, granite,

and to a lesser degree, moss rock. As discussed in the Mineral Occurrence and Development

Potential Report (BLM 2009b) potential for occurrence and certainty level for these materials

throughout the planning area is H/D. Known sand and gravel deposits with a rating of H/D are

present particularly along major drainages, glacial deposits, and alluvial basins throughout the

planning area (see Figure 3-17 of the Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report).

Known common-variety limestone in the Madison Formation or the Chugwater Group (Alcova

Limestone) is rated H/D. Such occurrences are present along parts of the perimeter of the

planning area.

Known common-variety granite is present over large areas, such as the Dubois area, South Pass,

Sweetwater Canyon, Sweetwater Rocks, and Copper Mountain, and in these areas is rated H/D.

There are weathered rocks of sandstone, siltstone, limestone, or granite covered in part with

lichens throughout the planning area. Sandstone and siltstone outcrops, primarily in the Flathead,

Cloverly, Muddy, Frontier, and Mesaverde formations, are commonly considered to be moss rock

if they are partially adorned with colorful lichens. In these formations, the occurrence potential

and certainty level for moss rock is H/D. Based on current use at existing moss rock common

use areas and negotiated sales sites, the potential for future commercial development of moss

rock from federal mineral estate in the planning area is estimated to be high in areas where there

are resources and those resources are available for disposal.

4.2.7.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.2.7.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Restrictions on development of mineral materials could adversely impact exploration and

development activities when closures or prohibitions to surface-disturbing activities apply,

because the mineral materials could not be accessed. The intensity of impacts would vary by

alternative and be proportional to actual demand. It follows that the impacts would be potentially

larger when closures or prohibitions fall on areas with high occurrence or potential than in areas

of moderate to low occurrence or potential.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Salable Minerals
732 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Management actions common to all alternatives that would adversely impact mineral materials

include continuing to maintain all pre-FLPMA withdrawals and segregations that closed land

to operation of the public land laws, including the mineral leasing laws, either expressly or by

interpretation (see Methods and Assumptions). The Lands and Realty section in Chapter 3 lists

these areas, and they are not further analyzed because they do not vary by alternative.

Under all alternatives, the requirement for cultural resources and threatened and endangered

species consultations would be maintained as these regulatory requirements are outside the realm

of RMP decision making.

Under all alternatives, new mineral materials disposals in areas open to mineral materials disposal

are subject to site‐specific analysis before approval. Approval of mineral materials disposals

would require appropriate mitigation and site‐specific reclamation based on a current mining and

reclamation plan. Mitigation and a site‐specific reclamation requirements could prescribe certain

activities or mitigation that could reduce the economic viability of mineral materials disposals

and result in indirect adverse impacts to mineral materials disposals (e.g., the application of

standard mitigation guidelines such as slope restrictions and riparian-wetland setbacks, and

timing restrictions to protect for BLM-sensitive wildlife species).

Case law has established that there is no authority for the Secretary to make sales of mineral

materials from unpatented mining claims under the provisions of the Surface Management Act

of 1955. Therefore, mining claims could adversely impact the availability of mineral materials

disposals if the BLM was not successful in contesting the validity of such mining claims by

establishing the lack of discovery if a valuable mineral deposit.

Management of WSAs is the same under all alternatives in regards to the management of salable

minerals; all WSAs are closed to mineral materials disposal. This would adversely impact

mineral materials availability, and some areas, such as Sweetwater Rocks and Sweetwater

Canyon, contain large quantities of igneous rock material (primarily granite) that is off limits

to disposal. In addition, Copper Mountain includes some rock formations of varying color and

texture that could be desirable as decorative stone. These adverse impacts are not further analyzed

because they do not vary by alternative.

Mineral materials availability decisions, such as the designation of common use areas, result in

beneficial impacts to the availability of mineral materials. All alternatives continue existing

common use areas, including the Little Popo Agie, Diamond Springs, and Agate Flats common

use areas, which in total designate 262 acres of surface estate available for streamlined

“over-the-counter” disposals. There are no community pits identified under any alternative, but it

is likely that this would be allowed under all alternatives; no decision under an RMP revision

is required for such designations.

4.2.7.3.2. Alternative A

4.2.7.3.2.1. Program Management

Alternative A continues management of resources on BLM‐administered surface and subsurface

mineral estate in the planning area under the 1987 RMP. Through land use planning decisions,

Alternative A only specifically closes areas to mineral materials disposal that are withdrawn from

the mining laws under pre-FLPMA or post-FLPMA withdrawal orders (assuming that mineral

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Salable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 733

withdrawals will continue to be maintained), areas closed to oil and gas development (Whiskey

Mountain and East Fork), and two areas closed to phosphate development in Red Canyon.

ACECs and other special designations do not necessarily close areas to mineral materials disposal

under Alternative A, but management under Alternative A generally specifies that mineral

materials disposals are incompatible with the values managed under those special designations,

effectively rendering those areas closed to mineral materials disposals.

As discussed under Methods and Assumptions and the Impacts Common to All Alternatives,

withdrawals and segregations might or might not contain express language to close lands to

mineral materials disposal, but existing management under Alternative A specifies that mineral

materials will be provided “on a demand basis and consistent with the limitations and restrictions

imposed on oil and gas, locatable minerals, and phosphate exploration and development in the

planning area”, thus effectively closing these areas to mineral materials disposals. Therefore,

other than areas under mineral withdrawal or segregation, special designations, or areas

specifically closed to leasable minerals (see Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land

Use Decisions in the Lander Planning Area” (p. 45)), the entire planning area is open to mineral

materials disposals case by case consistent with the limitations and restrictions imposed on oil and

gas, locatable minerals, and phosphate exploration in the planning area.

Alternative A closes a total of 229,014 acres of surface estate.

4.2.7.3.2.2. Resources

Soil-related adverse impacts to mineral materials disposals include prohibitions in areas where

slopes are greater than 25 percent. These areas represent approximately 182,345 acres in the

planning area. Alternative A does not address soils with LRP.

Riparian-wetland area restrictions under Alternative A prohibit mineral materials disposals within

500 feet of surface water and riparian-wetland areas. These areas represent 102,361 acres of

surface estate.

Wildlife-related impacts under Alternative A include restrictions such as closures, NSOs, and

timing and surface-use restrictions. Greater sage-grouse leks are considered NSO on or within

a 1⁄4-mile buffer around occupied leks, and under Alternative A would result in closures of

16,283 acres of surface. This would adversely impact mineral materials disposals. In addition,

surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities are to be avoided in greater sage-grouse

nesting habitat within 2 miles of occupied leks from February 1 through July 31. This stipulation

would adversely impact the availability of mineral materials from new surface disturbance by

constraining activities to only a few months out of the year in these areas, which total 794,452

acres of surface estate. This is an economic and convenience issue for the applicant rather than an

adverse impact that closes the areas.

Alternative A greater sage-grouse management increases the likelihood the species would be

listed under the ESA because a 1⁄4-mile buffer and a 2-mile buffer area are less than the science

recommends, and because other program management that contributed to a downward trend in

greater sage-grouse populations is continued. Listing would result in fewer potential impacts to

the mineral materials program than to the locatable minerals program because the BLM's ability to

control locatable mineral development is more limited even though it must comply with the ESA.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Salable Minerals
734 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Other protections for special status wildlife and plants under Alternative A could result in

delays or timing restrictions case by case, which would adversely affect the availability of

mineral materials. Total acres of crucial winter range for all species that carry timing and

distance restrictions include 605,898 surface acres (identical across all alternatives). In addition,

mineral materials disposals are seasonally avoided in elk winter range (166,525 surface acres).

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities related to mineral materials disposals are prohibited

within 3⁄4 mile of active raptor nests (301,237 surface acres). Surface-disturbing activities are

also avoided in pygmy rabbit habitats and prairie dog colonies, which would adversely impact

the disposal of mineral materials.

Management under Alternative A states that mineral materials disposals could also be restricted

or prohibited for the protection of important heritage/cultural/historic sites case by case.

4.2.7.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A does not identify recreation-related withdrawals or segregations other than the

pre-FLPMA withdrawals and segregations common to all alternatives.

The ROW program under Alternative A would offer few adverse impacts to mineral material

sales. The areas that are avoided for new ROWs would be of little desirability for source material.

In most places in the Lander Field Office with resources that are in close proximity to areas of

use, there would not be a conflict with authorizing the purchaser to access the material.

Restrictions to mineral materials disposals in areas with travel management are discussed n

relation to the resource values driving the travel management decisions.

4.2.7.3.2.4. Special Designations

Interim management for NWSRS-eligible waterway segments under Alternative A would protect

free-flowing characteristics, but would not result in adverse impacts to mineral materials disposals

in and of themselves because they are subject to other management to protect various resources.

These areas do have mineral materials potential, including large quantities of granitic rock for

decorative or aggregate use in Sweetwater Canyon, but this area is within a WSA and is managed

according to BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas.

Special designations such as ACECs, WSAs, and Congressionally Designated Trails, adversely

impact the availability of mineral materials. Consistent with 43 CFR 3601.10-11, under

Alternative A, these areas, while not expressively closed to mineral materials disposals, are

managed to effectively prohibit mineral materials disposals where such disposals would be

inconsistent with the values the special designations are designed to protect. Under Alternative A,

119,622 acres are under ACEC management and therefore effectively unavailable for mineral

materials disposal.

4.2.7.3.3. Alternative B

4.2.7.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B emphasizes conservation of physical, biological, heritage, and visual resources, with

constraints on resource uses. Compared to other alternatives, Alternative B conserves the most

land area for physical, biological, and heritage resources; designates the most ACECs; and is the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Salable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 735

most restrictive to motorized travel and mineral development. Management actions for resources

that restrict, prohibit, or limit mineral materials disposals would result in adverse impacts by

preventing or substantially restricting development in these areas. Under Alternative B, adverse

impacts to mineral materials would generally be much larger than under alternatives A and C.

Closure of public lands to mineral materials disposals would results in impacts similar to

those under Alternative A, although to a greater degree because more land is closed, and more

land is specifically closed when included under a special designation (e.g., ACEC, WSA,

Congressionally Designated Trails, or WSR). Alternative B represents the greatest adverse

impact to the mineral materials program due to mineral estate closures totaling 2,208,943 acres,

the most of any alternative. Sufficient area remains open to mineral materials disposals under

Alternative B to meet demand, but applicants might need to travel long distances at greater

expense to obtain the materials.

4.2.7.3.3.2. Resources

Soil-related restrictions under Alternative B are greater than under Alternative A. Alternative

B closes 413,670 acres to mineral materials disposals, more than twice the 182,345 acres under

Alternative A. In addition, Alternative B closes 86,735 surface acres in areas with LRP soils;

Alternative A avoids, but does not close, areas with LRP soils. It is not likely that the BLM would

allow mineral materials disposals in some of the areas closed under Alternative B but open under

Alternative A out of concern for impacts to other resources, but that would be addressed in

site-specific analyses.

Riparian-wetland area restrictions under Alternative B prohibit mineral materials disposals

within 1,320 feet of surface water and riparian-wetland areas totaling 227,764 acres of surface

estate in the planning area. Alternative A only requires 500-foot setbacks. Therefore, acres of

available surface estate that would be adversely impacted for mineral materials disposals would

approximately double under Alternative B compared to Alternative A.

Wildlife-related impacts to mineral materials availability are largest under Alternative B and

include restrictions such as closures, NSOs, and timing and surface-use restrictions. Adverse

impacts to mineral materials disposals due to greater sage-grouse concerns increase in acreage

under Alternative B because the buffer of NSO is increased to 0.6 mile around occupied leks,

resulting in closures of 93,410 acres of surface estate (a minor increase over Alternative A).

Under Alternative B, other protections for special status wildlife and plants could result in delays

or timing restrictions case by case. This would increase applicant costs and therefore have some

impact on the applicant or decrease the likelihood for some operators to pursue development, but

would not preclude the mineral materials disposals at the same time of the year.

Restrictions due to raptor concerns under Alternative B would result in the largest impacts to

mineral materials disposals because buffers around active raptor nests would be twice the size

of those under Alternative A (1.5 miles versus 3⁄4 mile). Therefore, surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities related to mineral materials disposals under Alternative B are subject to

timing stipulations on 781,643 surface acres, which is more than twice as restrictive as Alternative

A. Alternative B also avoids surface-disturbing activities in pygmy rabbit habitats and prairie dog

colonies, which would adversely impact mineral materials disposals.

Mineral materials disposals under Alternative B could be restricted or prohibited for the

protection of important heritage/cultural/historic sites case by case. Under Alternative B,

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Salable Minerals
736 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

more acres of surface estate would be unavailable for mineral materials disposals due to

heritage/cultural/historic sites compared to Alternative A. This would result in greater adverse

impacts to mineral material availability.

4.2.7.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B would result in the most adverse impacts to the availability of mineral materials

from resource uses compared to the other alternatives.

While Alternative B’s ROW management has adverse impacts to mineral material disposals

because of limits on the location of ROWs and roads, the more adverse impacts would come

from program management and the extensive areas closed to mineral material disposals under

this alternative.

Under Alternative B, recreation management emphasizes protection of resources and recreational

experiences, and includes more restrictions on resource uses than the other alternatives. Under

Alternative B, a total of 2,208,943 surface acres are closed to mineral materials disposal.

Alternative B adversely impact mineral materials disposals approximately nine times more than

Alternative A.

Recreation-related withdrawals or segregations under Alternative B that apply to mineral

materials disposal (based on presumed intent of the withdrawal/segregation order) apply to

169,774 acres (see Table 4.15, “Acreage of Withdrawals for the Benefit of Habitat, Cultural or

Recreational Values” (p. 681) in the Locatable Minerals section) more than the acres common

to all alternatives, which is the most of any alternative. The increase of closed acreage under

Alternative B is due partially to the addition of interpretive sites such as Castle Gardens; and NHT

sites such Devil’s Gate, Martin’s Cove, and Split Rock Rest; RMZs such as The Bus @ Baldwin

Creek and Sinks Canyon; and SRMAs such as the Dubois Mill Site and Sweetwater Rocks.

Expanded recreation management under Alternative B, such as the designation of additional

SRMAs, would increase adverse impacts to the availability of mineral materials compared to

Alternative A. The three SRMAs under existing management (Alternative A) are not specially

managed to preclude mineral materials disposals. Under Alternative B, seven SRMAs are

designated and carry NSO restrictions that effectively close 307,183 acres in these areas and

therefore would result in more adverse impacts to mineral materials availability.

Alternative B also designates seven RMZs within the SRMAs. These are zones where

management is more finely tuned toward a specific outcome. Because these RMZs are within the

SRMAs, they do not represent impacts to mineral materials availability additional to the impacts

from management under the SRMAs. Neither Alternative A nor C designates RMZs.

Under Alternative B, 13 Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) are designated to

address local recreation issues (in addition to general Lander ERMA that does not address specific

management). These areas total 799,504 acres that would impact the availability of mineral

materials; management in these areas would avoid mineral materials development because it

would be incompatible with recreation management objectives.

Alternative B has the far more adverse impacts to mineral materials disposals because of travel

management limitations in comparison to Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Salable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 737

4.2.7.3.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative B manages mineral actions within 5 miles of each side of NHTs with NSOs and

stronger restrictions (i.e., closed to mineral materials disposals) unless the proposed project would

not be visible from the NHTs. This would result in substantially larger adverse impacts to mineral

materials availability than management under Alternative A, which requires closures to mineral

materials disposals within 1⁄4 mile of the NHTs. Alternative B would be particularly more adverse

because it precludes disposals in areas that have historically been in high demand. In addition,

mineral materials disposals are prohibited 45,394 along the CDNST (in the Sweetwater Mining

RMZ) under Alternative B. There is no similar action under Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, the BLM closes all 8 WSAs to motorized and mechanized travel, which,

considering the need for motorized equipment to mine and transport mineral materials, would

effectively result in closures to mineral materials disposals. This would not result in more

adverse impacts than Alternative A, because the acreage and management are the same under

alternatives A and B.

The retention and expansion of existing ACECs and the addition of several new ACECs

under Alternative B would result in more adverse impacts to mineral materials disposals than

Alternative A. Alternative B includes 15 ACECs − nine existing areas (five of which the BLM

proposes to expand) and six new ACECs. Management in ACECs would preclude mineral

materials disposals. Under Alternative B, total acreage in ACECs is 1,492,990, more than the

119,622 acres in ACECs under Alternative A.

Alternative B WSR management would adversely impact mineral material disposal more severely

than Alternative A because all eligible waterways would be closed to disposals.

4.2.7.3.4. Alternative C

4.2.7.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C emphasizes resource uses and reduces constraints on resource uses to protect

physical, biological, heritage, and visual resources. Compared to other alternatives, Alternative

C conserves the least land area for physical, biological, and heritage resources and is the least

restrictive to motorized vehicle use and mineral development. Under Alternative C, closures

would adversely impact 141,409 acres of surface estate, substantially less than under Alternative

B, which closes 2,208,943 acres of surface estate to mineral materials disposals. Alternative C

closes approximately half the acreage of Alternative A.

4.2.7.3.4.2. Resources

Alternative C management actions for resources such as soil, riparian-wetland areas, and wildlife

that restrict, prohibit, or limit mineral materials disposals would result in adverse impacts by

preventing or substantially restricting development. Under Alternative C, adverse impacts to

mineral materials availability would be slightly less than under Alternative A and much less

than under Alternative B.

Alternative C protections for riparian-wetland areas would adversely impact mineral materials

availability less than Alternative B because of the difference in riparian-wetland setbacks.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Salable Minerals
738 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative C riparian-wetland setbacks are the same as Alternative A, unless less distance would

protect the riparian-wetland area.

Wildlife-related impacts to mineral material availability would be much less under Alternative C

than under Alternative B and Alternative C would have similar impacts compared to Alternative

A. Similar to the other alternatives, Alternative C avoids surface-disturbing activities in pygmy

rabbit habitats and prairie dog colonies, which would adversely impact the availability of mineral

materials since it would diminish the likelihood that management would approve a disposal in

those habitats. This acreage would be determined on a site-specific project basis.

Mineral materials disposals under Alternative C could be restricted or prohibited for the protection

of important heritage/cultural/historic sites case by case, but no new areas are identified other

than the ones common to all alternatives. This would result in fewer adverse impacts to mineral

materials disposals than Alternative B, and similar to but fewer than Alternative A.

4.2.7.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C would result in the fewest adverse impacts to the availability of mineral materials

from resource uses compared to alternatives A and B.

Under Alternative C, management of ROWs would have no adverse impacts to mineral material

sales. It would be far more beneficial than Alternative B and somewhat more beneficial than

Alternative A.

Protections for recreation-related resource uses under Alternative C result in a total 59,992 acres

of surface estate with NSO or stricter management, which would close these areas to mineral

materials disposals. This is less adverse to mineral resources than either Alternative A or B.

Recreation management under Alternative C includes the designation of only one SRMA.

Alternative C designates only one ERMA, with no restrictions on mineral materials disposal,

which would results in a far smaller adverse impact than Alternative B which has recreation

management that limits disposal.

Alternative C has the fewest adverse impacts on mineral materials disposals as a result of travel

management limitations.

4.2.7.3.4.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative C, adverse impacts to mineral materials availability would be substantially

fewer than the other alternatives, particularly Alternative B.

Alternative C manages the entire CDNST as an ERMA and designates 1⁄4 mile on either side of

the trail as an NLCS landscape (both of which generally result in a goal of avoiding incompatible

activities), while Alternative B closes 5 miles on either side along most of the CDNST. Under

Alternative A, the entire CDNST is included in an SRMA, but there are no allowable use

decisions for the area. Therefore, regarding the CDNST, Alternative A would result in the

smallest impact to mineral materials availability.

As under Alternative A, Alternative C manages mineral and realty actions within 1⁄4 mile of

each side of the NHTs as closed to mineral materials disposals which is far less adverse than

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Salable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 739

Alternative B's 5-mile buffer. A large portion of this area is included in the greater sage-grouse

ACEC under Alternative B.

Alternative C does not recommend any of the nine NWSRS-eligible waterways as suitable for

inclusion in the NWSRS.

Alternative C does not designate any ACECs, as opposed to the nine ACECs under Alternative A

and the new and expanded ACECs under Alternative B.

4.2.7.3.5. Alternative D

4.2.7.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D emphasizes a mixture of resource uses and protections of physical, biological,

heritage, and visual resources. Although less restrictive of mineral material disposals

than Alternative B, all ACECs are closed to disposals as are the lands in the Lander

Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area outside of ACECs. Additional lands are closed because of

proximity to greater sage-grouse leks and the Dubois area. In total, 956,011 acres are closed to

disposals which is the second largest closure of the alternatives; 1,853,090 acres are available

for disposal subject to a site-specific analysis.

4.2.7.3.5.2. Resources

Alternative D management to protect soils would result in the same adverse impacts as

alternatives A and C, with slightly more adverse impacts in soils with slopes between 15 and

24 percent, where conditions over and above standard stipulations could be applied. These

restrictions could require more mitigation or relocation of facilities, but will not preclude mineral

materials disposals. In any case, the prevalence of mineral material occurrences should mitigate

most adverse impacts to mineral materials disposals from slope restrictions.

Under Alternative D, adverse impacts to mineral materials disposals from protections of

sole-source aquifers and groundwater recharge areas would be the same as under Alternative B.

Although alternatives A and C do not prohibit disposals in groundwater resource areas, disposals

would likely be denied on a site-specific basis because of the extremely flexible management

the BLM uses to manage mineral materials.

Outside of areas closed to disposal for other resource values, Alternative D would result in the

same adverse impacts to mineral materials disposals from management to protect water quality as

Alternative A because floodplains and riparian-wetland areas are closed to surface occupancy.

This could represent a substantial adverse impact to sand and gravel disposals because floodplains

and riparian-wetland areas usually have prime occurrence potential for materials of this type.

Floodplain and riparian-wetland management under Alternative D would result in very small

adverse impacts to other types of mineral materials. In general, however, management under

Alternative D for these resources would result in more adverse impacts to mineral materials

disposals than management under Alternative C, but fewer than management under Alternative

B. See Chapter 2 for a comparison of the areas closed to mineral materials disposals under each

alternative.

Alternative D management to protect lands with wilderness characteristics would result in more

adverse impacts to mineral materials disposals than Alternative C but no more than would be

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Salable Minerals
740 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

closed in any case because all of the Dubois area, including the Little Red Creek Complex,

is closed to mineral materials disposals, which would result in the same adverse impacts as

Alternative B. Under Alternative A it is unlikely that the BLM would authorize mineral materials

disposals in the Little Red Creek Complex because of its proximity to the Whiskey Mountain

ACEC and WSA and the high resource conflict. With respect to these resources, there is little

difference among alternatives A, B, and D in their potential adverse impacts to mineral materials

disposals compared to Alternative C, which would not result in adverse impacts because disposals

are allowed. In any case, the demand for such disposals in the Little Red Creek Complex is low.

In addition to the adverse impacts to mineral materials disposals from the protection of wildlife

common to all alternatives, Alternative D would result in the same moderate adverse impacts to

mineral materials disposals as Alternative A by avoiding roads in big game crucial winter range

and parturition areas. The timing restrictions that are applied to crucial winter mule deer habitat

have been extended to mule deer winter habitat. This is a minor timing matter and has little

adverse impacts to the program. This management limits the areas available for disposals and

could limit demand for mineral materials. This would be less adverse than the Alternative B more

restrictive approach to road building, but moderately more adverse than Alternative C.

Alternative D applies timing restrictions for the protection of spawning fish, but this would not

adversely impact mineral materials disposals. Therefore, Alternative D would not result in more

adverse impacts than Alternative C, which applies no seasonal restrictions.

Although Alternative D imposes fewer restrictions on the use of chemical vegetation treatments

in sensitive plant populations, this would not beneficially impact mineral materials disposals

because surface mining in areas with such plants would not be allowed under any alternative.

Alternative D management for protection of wildlife including greater sage-grouse and other

resources, including cultural and viewshed, would result in fewer adverse impacts to mineral

materials disposals than Alternative B, but many more than alternatives A and C. Alternatives B

and D close the area within 0.6 mile of leks to surface disturbance, including surface mining of

leasable minerals, and many other areas for resource protections, including wildlife. (The current

demand for mineral materials in the Dubois area is not well known and has been generally limited

to sand and gravel in several designated pits in the Overlook area.) Alternatives A and C close

16,283 acres. Alternative D would be somewhat less adverse than Alternative B in the amount

of surface disturbance allowed both inside and outside greater sage-grouse Core Area because

Alternative B applies limits to all disturbance, including mineral materials disposals. However,

disturbance limits under Alternative D do not apply to mineral materials disposals, rangeland

improvement projects, or other ROWs and are limited geographically to the Core Area. Outside

the Core Area, Alternative D restricts surface disturbance to within 1⁄4 mile of leks. This reduces

the areas protected from surface disturbance outside the Core Area in comparison to Alternative

B. Alternative D also places fewer restrictions on the height of objects in the Core Area.

Alternative D management of reptile habitat would be slightly more adverse to mineral materials

disposals than Alternative A or C, and much less adverse than Alternative B. Mineral material

potential has not been mapped for reptile habitat.

Cultural resource management of Cedar Ridge and Castle Gardens Traditional Cultural Properties

(TCPs) and the Regional Historic Trails and Early Highways (RHT&EHs) are analyzed under

Special Designations.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Salable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 741

VRM could adversely impact mineral materials disposals on a site-specific basis. Alternative D

manages 25 percent more of the planning area than Alternative A as VRM Classes I and II, which

would make it unlikely that mineral materials disposals would be allowed unless visual intrusions

could be mitigated by terrain. However, only a portion of this acreage has potential for mineral

materials. This would result in impacts similar to Alternative B and slightly more than Alternative

A. All alternatives would result in more adverse impacts than Alternative C, which manages more

acreage as VRM Class IV. Depending on site-specific situations, mineral materials disposals

could be authorized in VRM Class II and III areas if analysis in accordance with BLM guidance

determined that the contrast would be acceptable. It is not possible to quantify the differences in

adverse impacts to mineral materials disposals among alternatives.

4.2.7.3.5.3. Resource Uses

ROW management under Alternative D would have some long-term adverse impacts to mineral

material disposals because of limitations on where new ROWs could be located which would

make some areas more difficult to access than under Alternative A. However, the more important

adverse impacts are the result of the areas that are closed to sales in this alternative. The areas

that are open for sales would likely be able to be reached by ROWs although it is possible that

some areas would remain inaccessible.

Alternative D specifically closes acreage related to recreation/interpretive sites in addition to

closures common to all alternatives (the same as Alternative B). However, it is likely that this

adverse impact to mineral materials disposals would also be the same as under alternatives A

and C because the BLM would likely deny a disposal in these areas because of the traditional

recreation-related use of the areas. Although Alternative C emphasizes resource uses, there are

so many other sources for materials that the BLM would likely deny disposals in developed

interpretive sites.

4.2.7.3.5.4. Special Designations

Management under Alternative D to protect values associated with Congressionally Designated

Trails in the NTMC would more adversely impact mineral materials disposals than alternatives A

and C, but less than Alternative B. Additionally, other resource values in the NTMC contribute to

more restrictions in the corridor. The adverse impacts to the mineral material disposal program

from Alternative D management would be somewhat limited, because disposals would be allowed

if the VRM objectives were met.

Management of river segments suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS would result in no additional

adverse impacts to the mineral materials program because these segments are in areas otherwise

closed to disposals to protect other values.

Alternative D management of ACECs and of the areas proposed as ACECs in the other

alternatives (but not carried forward in Alternative D) would result in more adverse impacts to

mineral materials disposals than management under Alternative A, substantially more than under

Alternative C, and less than under Alternative B. See Chapter 2 for acres closed to mineral

materials disposals under each alternative. The primary difference between Alternative B and

Alternative D regarding adverse impacts to mineral materials disposals is that, while lands in the

Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area (including the Twin Creek ACEC under Alternative D)

are closed to mineral materials disposals under both alternatives, Alternative B closes more area

to mineral materials disposals in the proposed Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Salable Minerals
742 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

ACEC. The closures in the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC are not

included in management under Alternative D because mineral materials disposals are not subject

to the surface disturbance limitations applied to oil and gas leasing and energy projects.

4.3. Fire and Fuels Management

This section describes potential impacts to fire and fuels management from management actions

for other resource programs. Restrictions on fire and fuels management are considered direct

impacts. Indirect impacts from alternatives include actions resulting in a change in risk or

incidence of wildland fires; size, intensity, or destructive nature of wildland fires; fire-suppression

costs; and fuel loading.

Fire plays an important and natural part in ecosystem function; however, a number of factors

have altered the natural fire regime in the planning area. Although alteration of the natural fire

regime is considered an adverse impact to fire ecology, actions contributing to an increase in the

incidence of wildland fires or limiting the ability to effectively fight wildland fires are considered

adverse impacts to fire management. This analysis focuses on impacts to fire management. For

example, actions limiting fire-suppression tactics, thereby resulting in larger burn areas or more

intense fires, are considered adverse impacts. Conversely, actions contributing to a decrease in the

incidence of resource-damaging wildland fires or enhancing the ability to fight fires are considered

beneficial impacts. For example, the use of unlimited tactics or full suppression may, in some

cases, protect a resource against potential fire damage, a beneficial impact.

Regarding planned (prescribed) fire and fuels management, actions restricting the acreage or

effectiveness of prescribed fire and fuels treatments are considered adverse. For example,

stipulations to protect other resources (e.g., wildlife or livestock grazing) that restrict or prevent

prescribed fires and fuels treatments in certain areas or at certain times of the year are considered

direct adverse impacts to prescribed fire and fuels management. Conversely, the absence of

stipulations or actions that may increase the acreage or effectiveness of prescribed fire and

fuels management are considered beneficial impacts. This may also be true for stipulations

or actions that support the suppression tactics that allow the use of wildland fire for resource

benefit. Decreasing the use of prescribed fire is likely to decrease the number of acres receiving

vegetation treatments.

For purposes of this analysis, short-term impacts to fire and fuels management include impacts

occurring within 5 years. Long-term impacts remain or occur after 5 years. The BLM anticipates

short- and long-term impacts to fire and fuels from management under all alternatives.

The following description of impacts is organized into three sections: wildfires (unplanned

ignitions); prescribed fire (planned ignitions) and fuels management that are utilized to achieve

resource benefits, and stabilization and rehabilitation following fire. Analysis methods and

assumptions described in the Unplanned/Wildfire section apply to all three sections.

Seventy percent of the planning area is in Core Area. Both the National Technical Team (NTT)

Conservation Strategy and the Wyoming Governor’s Core Area Executive Order limit the use

of prescribed fire in areas of Core Area receiving less than 12 inches of annual precipitation.

Seventy-six percent of the Core Area (and 70 percent of the planning area) receives less than 12

inches of annual precipitation. Therefore, all alternatives have management in common that limits

the use of prescribed fire across 70 percent of the planning area. Fire suppression in Core Area

is emphasized as a priority (after public and firefighter safety) for all alternatives, so that the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fire and Fuels Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 743

impacts for fire suppression do not vary by alternative for 70 percent of the planning area. The

following analysis is for the 24 percent of Core Area in which prescribed fire may be used as a

fuels or vegetation treatment and for the 30 percent of the planning area where full suppression is

not mandated.

Summary of Impacts

Alternative B would result in complex management strategies regarding limitations on the

ability to use fire to achieve resource objectives, while Alternative C would be the most direct

by employing full suppression in all cases. Alternatives A and D apply a similar management

strategy that allows flexibility in wildfire suppression activities while minimizing damage

to resources, and use suppression on a case-by-case basis, allowing for ecosystem benefit.

Alternative B provides for the greatest opportunity to allow fire to return to its natural role in the

ecosystem, utilize fuels treatments to protect wildland urban interface (WUI) areas, and restore

ecosystems but only over the very long term. Not only would fire risk be reduced with additional

treatments, but not expanding range infrastructure would decrease the need for suppression

efforts and increase the BLM's ability to allow for fire to fulfill its natural role in the ecosystem.

Alternative B, however, would result in the highest short- and long-term adverse impacts to areas

outside greater sage-grouse habitat.

4.3.1. Unplanned/Wildfire

4.3.1.1. Summary of Impacts

Wildfire management within the planning area is a cooperative program with adjacent federal

and state agencies as well as the local fire departments. Stipulations for resource management

programs that prohibit management decisions to successfully contain an undesired wildfire are

considered adverse impacts. Management decisions that increase development and activity in

high fuel load areas within the planning area may lead to an increase in undesired human-caused

fires and would be considered an adverse impact. Management of other resource programs that

allow certain wildland fire suppression decisions is considered beneficial. Such is the case with

wildland fire used to meet resource objectives.

4.3.1.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the followings (these methods and

assumptions also apply to the analysis presented in the Stabilization and Rehabilitation section):

● There is a direct relationship between fuel loads (standing and non-standing vegetation) and

potential fire size and intensity. Higher fuel-loading levels increase the size and intensity of

fires.

● The area specific fire management plan (Southern Wyoming Zone Fire Management

Plan [FMP] [BLM 2004b]) implements the fire and fuels management direction on

BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

● Wildland fires that do not threaten human life, private properties, or important resources can

be used as a tool to reduce fuel loads, improve plant communities, and enhance wildlife

habitats. However, protections for greater sage-grouse require suppression in greater

sage-grouse habitat. The types of tools available for wildland fire management, including the

use of wildland fire to accomplish specific resource management objectives, are described in

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Unplanned/Wildfire
744 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

more detail in the Southern Wyoming Zone FMP, although the limits on the use of prescribed

fire in sagebrush communities limits this tool in the planning area.

● Development of infrastructure such as for oil and gas or wind-energy development limit or

close areas to use of fire as a vegetation treatment tool.

● Compared to limited suppression tactics, unlimited tactics reduce the amount of acres burned

annually, but potentially increase the amount of surface disturbance and result in the need

for more extensive rehabilitation. Unlimited suppression tactics also alter the condition class

of the vegetation by preventing wildland fire to play its appropriate role in maintaining

fire-adapted ecosystems.

● The increasing presence of invasive plant species and cheatgrass in the planning area can

change fire behavior, alter the natural fire regime, result in poor reestablishment of native

species post-burn, and restrict future fuels treatment options.

● The BLM Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation standards in the DOI Interagency

Burned Area Emergency Response Guidebook (DOI 2006b) and the BLM Burned Area

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (BLM 2007d) could be implemented

for wildland fires to protect and sustain healthy ecosystems and protect life and property.

● In cases where human life or safety may be at risk, full fire-suppression tactics would be used

and would become a higher priority than any resource protection or management stipulations.

● Since most unplanned fires are caused by lightening strikes in comparison to human activities,

the impacts of the ROW management under each alternative would have relatively limited

effect on the likelihood of fire. However, the more limited the road network, the more difficult

access to remote areas for fire suppression. Since most travel management decisions will be

deferred to implementation, impacts to fire suppression will need to be addressed during that

analysis.

4.3.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

All alternatives have the potential to impact wildfire suppression and management; therefore,

they could also impact other resources, including resource protection. For example, fires burning

more acreage for longer periods emit more particulate matter into the air, thereby affecting air

quality. In addition, fire can affect rangeland health, wildlife habitat quality and quantity, and

plant community health. Impacts to other resources (e.g., physical and biological resources) from

fire management are addressed under the appropriate resource section.

4.3.1.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The use of wildland fire as a management tool in forests and woodlands facilitates the

reintroduction of fire to its natural role in the ecosystem and may help to restore aspen stands

that depend on fire. In light of depressed demand and oversupply of wood products, forest

and woodlands management is not expected to substantially contribute to future wildland fire

management under any alternative.

Lands and realty actions may result in adverse impacts to fire and fuels management because

some areas with mixed ownership patterns not identified for disposal are very difficult to access

and provide challenges for suppression actions. These areas may also have a higher potential

for fire due to increased human activity associated with WUI areas. Notable examples are found

on the Lander Slope and in the Dubois area. Limitations on new roads or the closure of existing

roads can limit fire suppression. While this is likely to vary by alternative (more roads would be

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Unplanned/Wildfire February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 745

closed and fewer new roads would be authorized under Alternative B, while Alternative C would

likely have more roads), this can be assessed only during travel management implementation.

Potential reduction of nonnative species by the BLM and partners, such as the Fremont County

Weed and Pest District, results in a beneficial impact to wildfire suppression by reducing

unnatural fuel loading. Reducing nonnative species such as cheatgrass, which increases the

intensity of fire behavior and may increase wildfire size and extent, would beneficially impact

all resources and the fire program; infested sites generally result in poor reestablishment of

native species after a wildfire event.

Actions that suppress the natural role of fire in the ecosystem may result in fuels buildup and

eventually lead to larger and more landscape-level fires. However, suppressing fires in these

areas may help to protect habitat important to sagebrush obligate species such as the greater

sage-grouse. Establishing fuels treatments at strategic locations to minimize the size of wildfires

and limit further loss of greater sage-grouse habitat would result in long-term benefits to fire and

fuels management by reducing the incidence and spread of fire in greater sage-grouse habitat.

Maintaining connectivity between large blocks of undisturbed habitat for wildlife may adversely

impact fuels management by limiting the size and extent of prescribed fire and other fuels

treatment options, as well as limiting the use of wildland fire for resource benefit to maintain

these large blocks of untreated land in similar vegetation types. Seasonal limits in crucial winter

range and parturition areas would limit the time that fuels-reduction activities can take place

and limit the effectiveness of the fuels management program over the next 20 years, unless

an administrative exception is granted. Other potential adverse impacts include the limits on

cross-country travel in areas with special status plant species, and restrictions on fire suppression

strategies in greater sage-grouse critical areas.

Maintaining wild/feral horse objectives in Herd Management Areas (HMAs) could benefit fuels

management because those regulations mitigate adverse impacts to vegetation communities from

horses. Horses may also benefit from wildfire suppression by reducing the natural fuel loading

associated with areas ungrazed by commercial livestock. These beneficial impacts would be the

same for livestock. Adverse impacts from livestock and, in some cases, horses occur due to

moderate to high utilization levels that alter potential healthy vegetation community fuel loading

in areas where fire is a desired tool, as well as hampering recovery of sites post-burn.

Management actions restricting fire suppression or wildland fire planning within Special

Designation areas would result in adverse impacts to wildland fire management.

Maintaining WSAs results in beneficial impacts to natural management strategies for fire

and fuels such as the use of wildland fire for resource benefit and prescribed fire. Adverse

impacts associated with WSAs are due to restrictions on vehicle access to suppress fires and

perform beneficial fuels treatments. ACEC actions common to all alternatives complement fuels

management by authorizing fuels management treatments in the WUI and not closing the ACECs

to fuels treatments. However, adverse impacts may result from seasonal limitations in ACECs on

treatments that would reduce fuel loads and complement suppression tactics.

All alternatives authorize the use of heavy equipment for fire suppression in consideration of

resource values, which would benefit fire and fuels management.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Unplanned/Wildfire
746 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.3.1.3.2. Alternative A

4.3.1.3.2.1. Program Management

Decisions in the RMP guide management actions regarding fire suppression. The Southern

Wyoming Zone FMP (BLM 2004b) will be modified to meet RMP goals, which are set through

the fire program. Wildland-fire suppression tactics follow direction and guidance in the Federal

Wildland Fire Management Policy (DOI and USDA 2009). This guidance provides for consistent

implementation of the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy on BLM-administered lands.

Under Alternative A, fire suppression is driven by property threats or resource benefits derived.

Full suppression is used where it is clearly warranted because of potential resource damage and

threats to persons or property (BLM 1987a). Soil-disturbing activities, such as the use of heavy

equipment to fight fires, are allowed on a case-by-case basis.

4.3.1.3.2.2. Resources

Under Alternative A, restrictions on soil-disturbing activities on slopes over 25 percent would

restrict fire suppression actions. The use of heavy equipment in certain strategic locations may

limit the extent to which wildfires threaten critical resource values or health and human safety.

Restricting the use of heavy equipment to suppress fires may result in adverse impacts to the

management of wildland fires. Similarly, avoiding the aerial application of fire-suppressant

chemicals within 300 feet of perennial waters and restricting the use of fire-retardant chemicals

as appropriate to protect rock art and water quality would result in adverse impacts to the

management of wildland fires by limiting the potential to effectively control fires in these areas.

The Agency Administrator can waive all of these limitations.

Forest and woodland management complements wildfire suppression. Forest and woodland

management works to achieve a variety of seral classes across the wooded landscape, which aids

in reducing fire intensity, and assists with potential suppression strategies. Examples are found in

treated juniper woodlands throughout the planning area and on Green Mountain, where a history

of clear-cuts has altered the forest canopy and reduced fuel loading. Adverse impacts would result

from human-caused fires in cutting areas from unintended ignitions and vehicle use in these areas.

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities in special status species habitat, such as greater sage-grouse

nesting areas and pygmy rabbit habitat, would adversely impact fire suppression because of

potential limitations on suppression tactics in these areas. These limitations may allow fires

detrimental to landscapes to grow larger and result in more impacts in terms of acres burned.

4.3.1.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative A, most of the planning area is open to wind-energy and mineral development.

This development may result in adverse impacts to fire suppression in terms of increased potential

for human-caused ignitions and increased infrastructure associated with this type of development,

which makes fire suppression actions more challenging than when working on an undisturbed

landscape. For example, placing wind turbines in an area with high wind potential would limit

the use of aerial suppression techniques because of safety concerns. A beneficial impact may be

the increased supporting road network associated with this development, which could be used

strategically to suppress wildfires.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Unplanned/Wildfire February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 747

Livestock grazing management would result in short-term and long-term impacts to fire and

fuels management. Livestock grazing primarily affects the distribution, amount, height, and

vigor of herbaceous species such as perennial grasses, which can determine fire characteristics.

Livestock grazing is beneficial to fire suppression efforts by reducing fine fuels. A decrease in fire

spread may result in an accumulation of larger fuel sources such as shrub vegetation between

fires, which may contribute to larger fires in the long term. Livestock grazing may also reduce

flame length, fire-line intensity, and rate of spread, which would result in beneficial impacts to

suppression activities. Fire-line intensity and flame length are important measures of potential

suppression success.

Trails and travel management would result in both adverse and beneficial impacts to management

of wildland fires. Travel designations provide access throughout the planning area, which may

result in adverse impacts by increasing the incidence of human-caused fires. Increased access may

also increase the potential for fire in more remote locations that are more difficult to respond to

and control. Alternatively, motorized vehicle routes may result in beneficial impacts by increasing

access, response time, and management flexibility when responding to fires.

Recreational activities can result in adverse impacts to wildland fire suppression due to the

increased likelihood for fire starts in SRMAs and ERMAs, where both concentrated and dispersed

use increases the likelihood for unintended ignitions. This impact would be consistent across all

alternatives and would be a long-term impact because recreational use in the planning area is

anticipated to steadily increase over the next 20 to 25 years.

The designation of utility corridors and authorization of ROWs may result in beneficial impacts

to fire and fuels management by removing or reducing built-up fuels and by serving as fuel

breaks and fire lines. Utility corridors and access roads authorized through ROW designations

may also result in beneficial impacts by providing access for fire-fighting and other fire and fuels

management activities. The designation of ROWs and increased incidence of human presence

associated with ROW construction and use may increase the potential for unplanned ignitions

in the planning area.

4.3.1.3.2.4. Special Designations

While WSA management could result in some adverse impacts to fire suppression by limiting

potential suppression actions and access in these areas, this is generally not the case because fires

can be contained within roads surrounding the designated areas. A notable exception may be

within the Copper Mountain WSA because fuel loading outside that WSA is as heavy or heavier

than fuel loading within the WSA. A restricted response to fire may cause the fire to move onto

surrounding private lands.

ACEC management under Alternative A may limit fire suppression actions if roads have been

reclaimed to help the resource that benefits from the ACEC designation. The reduction in roads to

access wildfires may restrict suppression tactics and allow fires to grow larger and potentially

cause resource damage and threaten health and human safety, especially in WUI areas.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Unplanned/Wildfire
748 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.3.1.3.3. Alternative B

4.3.1.3.3.1. Program Management

Under Alternative B, fire suppression is driven by threatened property or derived resource

benefits. Full suppression is used when it is clearly warranted due to potential resource damage

and threats to persons or property (BLM 1987a). Under Alternative B, full suppression is used

in the WUI, developed recreation sites, identified cultural resources, and aboveground utility

ROWs. Implementation of soil-disturbing activities (heavy equipment) to suppress fires is

allowed only with the recommendation of the resource advisor and approval of the Agency

Administrator in accordance with the approved FMP. Due to its emphasis on resource protection,

Alternative B limits the use of a full suite of fire suppression tactics the most, when compared

to other alternatives.

4.3.1.3.3.2. Resources

Management actions that restrict fire suppression, fuels management, or wildland fire planning

would result in adverse impacts to wildland fire management. In general, restrictions on fire

management for the protection of resource objectives are greater under Alternative B than under

alternatives A and C. However, under certain scenarios, implementing actions under Alternative

B could reduce the severity of landscape-level wildfires. For example, in areas where naturally

caused fires were allowed to burn, fuel loads may be decreased over the long term.

Under Alternative B, restrictions on soil-disturbing activities on slopes over 15 percent may

restrict fire suppression actions. The use of heavy equipment in certain strategic locations

can limit the extent to which wildfires threaten critical resource values or health and human

safety. Restricting the use of heavy equipment to suppress fires may result in adverse impacts

to the management of wildland fires. Similarly, avoiding aerial application of fire-suppressant

chemicals within 300 feet of perennial waters and restricting the use of fire-retardant chemicals

as appropriate to protect rock art and water quality would result in adverse impacts to the

management of wildland fires by limiting the potential to effectively control fires in these areas.

Forest and woodland management complements wildfire suppression. Forest and woodland

management works to achieve a variety of seral classes across the wooded landscape, which aids

in lessening fire behavior and contributing toward potential suppression strategies. Examples

are found in treated juniper woodlands throughout the planning area and on Green Mountain,

where a history of clear-cuts has altered the forest canopy and reduced fuel loading. Adverse

impacts would result from unintended human-caused fires in cutting areas and vehicle use in these

high fuel loading areas during the dry conditions of summer. Alternative B emphasizes using

natural processes to manage forests and woodlands to the greatest extent possible, which may

result in adverse impacts to wildland fire suppression. Fuel loading in these systems would be

greater outside the WUI, areas managed for other resources (e.g., wildlife), or those areas treated

to protect health and human safety, and could lead to landscape-level fire conditions. Prohibiting

clear-cuts would lead to forest canopy fuel continuity in lodgepole stands, which makes fire

suppression efforts challenging and extremely costly. Similar adverse impacts would result

from a natural approach to management of forest stands experiencing large-scale die off of trees

from insects and disease.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Unplanned/Wildfire February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 749

Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities within 1,320 feet of riparian-wetlands would adversely

impact fire suppression by limiting the use of draft tanks for engines and tenders to access water

sources in the event of a wildfire.

Expanded restrictions under Alternative B would potentially limit suppression actions. An

example is the 1.5-mile buffer around active raptor nests where there can be no surface-disturbing

or disruptive activities during the summer fire season. Closing areas with special status species

plants may also similarly result in an adverse impact to fire suppression.

Greater sage-grouse management under Alternative B would result in adverse impacts to fire

suppression, with restrictions on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within 3 miles

of nesting areas. Similarly, the restriction on surface-disturbing activities within 100 meters

(approximately 330 feet) of suitable pygmy rabbit habitat would adversely impact potential

suppression actions in these higher fuel loading shrub-steppe sites. These limitations may allow

fires detrimental to landscapes to grow larger and result in a greater impact in terms of acres

burned.

4.3.1.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Additional lands identified for disposal in areas of high fuel loading would result in beneficial

impacts to the fire suppression program under Alternative B because responsibility for suppressing

fires on those lands would not be the primary responsibility of the BLM, but will be undertaken

by land managers with greater access to the property.

Impacts to fire and fuels management from the designation of utility corridors and ROW

authorizations under Alternative B would be greater than under alternatives A and C because of the

decreased area of designated ROW corridors and more ROW exclusion areas under Alternative B.

Under Alternative B, substantially less acreage is open to wind-energy and mineral development.

Approximately 41,372 acres of BLM surface acres are open to wind energy, 954,776 acres are

open to locatable mineral development, and 529,576 acres are open to mineral leasing under

this alternative. The lower acreage open for development under Alternative B would result in

beneficial impacts compared to alternatives A and C. Under Alternative B, there would be a lower

incidence of human-caused fire across the landscape and more chance of less-complex fires

because there would be less infrastructure supporting development. This would result in a lower

occurrence of wildland fires and fewer wildland fire-suppression actions.

Adverse impacts to fire and fuels management from livestock grazing would be greater under

Alternative B than under Alternative A or Alternative C because of a reduction in the level of

grazing use and more areas being closed to livestock grazing. As a result, fine fuels buildup would

increase and the size of fires would be expected to increase. A beneficial impact to fire and fuels

management would result from an increase in acres treated because BLM funds would not be

used to construct infrastructure but would be used for vegetation treatments.

Management for recreation would result in impacts to fire and fuels management similar to those

under Alternative A, except that recreation management under Alternative B focuses on reversing

the trend under Alternative A of moving toward a more urban recreation setting to moving toward

a more primitive recreation setting. Because of the decreased focus on developing camping sites

and other recreation sites under Alternative B, the adverse impacts may be reduced. However,

the increased area managed as SRMAs may increase the potential for unplanned human-caused

ignitions in these areas because of increased recreation activity, although Alternative B

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Unplanned/Wildfire
750 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

emphasizes nonmotorized recreation over motorized. Under all alternatives, recreational use in

the planning area is anticipated to steadily increase over the next 20 to 25 years, which would

result in adverse impacts to fire and fuels management.

Trails and travel management under Alternative B allows for the use of existing roads and trails

throughout most of the planning area, with the use of only designated roads in a larger percentage

of the planning area than Alternative A, and with seasonal restrictions in more areas. This could

result in a beneficial impact to fire and fuels management in terms of reduced potential for

human-caused fires due to reduced public access to areas with high fuel loading.

4.3.1.3.3.4. Special Designations

While WSA management could result in some adverse impacts to fire suppression in terms of

limiting potential suppression actions and access in these areas, this is generally not the case

because fires can be contained within roads surrounding the designated areas. A notable exception

may be within the Copper Mountain WSA because the fuel loading outside that WSA is as heavy

or heavier than fuel loading within the WSA, and a restricted response to fire may cause the

fire to move onto surrounding private lands.

ACEC management under Alternative B may limit fire suppression actions if roads have been

reclaimed to help the resource that would benefit from the ACEC designation. The reduction

in roads to access wildfires may restrict suppression tactics and allow fires to grow larger and

potentially cause resource damage and threaten health and human safety and the WUI. The

increased acreage within ACECs designated under Alternative B would lead to more complex

challenges associated with suppression actions in terms of resource protection stipulations and

actions that may be taken within ACECs to suppress wildland fires. This would be especially true

of the expanded Green Mountain ACEC, the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

ACEC, the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC, and the Lander Slope ACEC, which

comprise an area with the highest proportion of fire starts in the planning area. A beneficial

impact of the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC is the objective of reducing fuels within

the WUI. This would benefit fire suppression by reducing fuel loading before wildfires and

allow for greater success in effectively protecting homes and valuable cultural resources in the

event of a local wildfire.

4.3.1.3.4. Alternative C

4.3.1.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C allows the most resource use of the three alternatives and fire suppression actions

under Alternative C are the least restricted. Soil-disturbing activities, such as the use of heavy

equipment for the purposes of direct fire suppression, are permitted across a greater area under

this alternative. In general, restrictions on fire management for the protection of other resource

objectives are the fewest under Alternative C.

4.3.1.3.4.2. Resources

Avoiding soil-disturbing activities on slopes over 25 percent and the aerial application of

fire-suppressant chemicals within 300 feet of perennial waters, and restricting the use of

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Unplanned/Wildfire February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 751

fire-retardant chemicals as appropriate to protect rock art and water quality would result in similar

adverse impacts as those described under Alternative A.

Under Alternative C, impacts to the suppression of wildland fires in forest and woodland areas

would be similar to those under Alternative A, but less than those under Alternative B. Forest and

woodland management works to achieve a variety of seral classes across the wooded landscape,

which aids in lessening fire behavior and helps potential suppression strategies. Alternative

C allows for more aggressive forest management, which would benefit fire suppression with

larger patch sizes of early seral communities. Examples are found in treated juniper woodlands

throughout the planning area and on Green Mountain, where a history of clear-cuts has altered the

forest canopy and reduced the fuel loading. Adverse impacts would result from human-caused

fires in cutting areas and unintended ignitions and vehicle use within these cutting areas. These

types of ignitions would increase under Alternative C.

Management of grassland/shrubland communities under Alternative C would benefit wildfire

suppression by reducing fine-fuel loading associated with increased fire behavior. The reduction

in fine fuels would result from more livestock use across the planning area.

Reviewing fire suppression impacts to special status species on a case-by-case basis would result

in the same adverse impacts as described for Alternative A.

Many wildlife restrictions under Alternative C, including distance requirements for

surface-disturbing activities around greater sage-grouse leks and actions in occupied pygmy rabbit

habitat, are similar to those under Alternative A. These restrictions would adversely impact fire

suppression activities. This would potentially limit suppression actions and allow fires detrimental

to the landscape to grow larger and cause more impacts in terms of acres burned. The restriction

on surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities within 1⁄4 mile of active raptor nests could

adversely impact wildland fire suppression.

4.3.1.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative C, wildland fire would be used to restore fire-adapted ecosystems for

commodity production and to reduce hazardous fuels. Alternative C places more emphasis on fire

and fuels management for the use of resources compared to Alternative B, which uses wildland

fire to restore the natural processes of ecosystems.

Under Alternative C, most of the planning area is open to wind-energy and mineral development.

This development may result in adverse impacts to fire suppression in terms of increased potential

for human-caused ignitions and increased infrastructure associated with this type of development,

which makes fire suppression actions more challenging than when working on an undisturbed

landscape. A beneficial impact may be the increased supporting road network associated with this

development, which can be used strategically to suppress wildfires.

Trails and travel management under Alternative C allows use of existing roads and trails

throughout most of the planning area, with seasonal restrictions in certain locations. This may

result in an adverse impact to fire and fuels management in terms of increased potential for

human-caused fires and increased public access to areas with high fuel loading. A beneficial

impact under Alternative C would result from a higher level of access from established roads for

the purposes of implementing fire suppression actions.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Unplanned/Wildfire
752 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Livestock grazing in relation to fire suppression activities under Alternative C would result in

impacts similar to those under Alternative A, but less than those under Alternative B. Livestock

grazing may be beneficial to wildland fire suppression by reducing fuel loading through the use of

grazing animals and consequentially, a net reduction in extreme fire behavior. However, under

Alternative C, like Alternative A, approximately one-third of the amount of acres would have

vegetation treatments compared to Alternative B.

Recreational activities can result in adverse impacts to wildland fire suppression with an increased

likelihood for fire starts in SRMAs and ERMAs, where both concentrated and dispersed use

increases the likelihood for unintended fire starts. Alternative C is more likely to increase the

trend toward an urban recreation setting with increased emphasis on motorized vehicle recreation.

This may increase adverse impacts to the fire and fuels management program identified under

other alternatives because recreation is anticipated to consistently increase over the next 20

to 25 years. Under Alternative C, this increase would likely be in motorized recreation, not

nonmotorized recreation as under Alternative B.

4.3.1.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C includes no other specific restrictions on fire and fuels management related to

resource objectives or special designations in addition to the restrictions and impacts described

under Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Alternative C would allow for a greater use of all

available fire suppression and management tactics when compared to Alternative A or B.

4.3.1.3.5. Alternative D

4.3.1.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D uses a full range of suppression tactics based on resources at risk. This would result

in comparable strategies to Alternative C and less restrictions to the fire and fuels program than

under Alternative B, under which full suppression of wildfires is limited to specific management

and development issues close to the wildfire. Alternative D has the second fewest resource

utilization management actions next to Alternative B. In general, Alternative D restrictions on

wildland fire suppression specifically for the protection of other resource objectives are fewer than

under Alternative B but more than under Alternative C, under which a full suite of suppression

tactics would be utilized throughout the planning area.

4.3.1.3.5.2. Resources

Similar to alternatives A and C, avoidance of soil-disturbing activities on slopes over 25 percent

can restrict fire suppression actions under Alternative D by limiting heavy-equipment use in

certain strategic locations, potentially restricting suppression tactics that may limit the extent of

wildfires threatening critical resource values or health and human safety. Similarly, avoiding aerial

application of fire retardants within 300 feet of any waterbody and 500 feet of waterbodies that

support certain sensitive fish species would result in a smaller adverse impact to fire suppression

than Alternative B but larger than either Alternative A or Alternative C, under which 300 feet

is specified for all waterbodies. However, in all cases, the Agency Administrator can waive

these distance limits under appropriate circumstances and therefore reduce restrictions on fire

suppression tactics where necessary to successfully slow an active wildfire.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Unplanned/Wildfire February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 753

Under Alternative D, impacts to the suppression of wildland fires in forest and woodland areas are

similar to those under Alternative A, less than those under Alternative B, and more than those

under Alternative C. Forest and woodland management works to achieve a variety of seral classes

across the wooded landscape, which aids in lessening fire behavior and helps potential suppression

strategies. Alternative D authorizes more aggressive forest management where appropriate, which

would benefit fire suppression with larger patch sizes of early seral communities. Examples

are found in treated juniper woodlands throughout the planning area and on Green Mountain,

where a history of clear-cuts has altered the forest canopy and reduced fuel loading. Adverse

impacts would result from human-caused fires in cutting areas and from unintended ignitions and

increased vehicle use in these cutting areas. There would be more of these types of ignitions under

Alternative D than under Alternative B, and approximately the same as under alternatives A and C.

Management of grassland/shrubland communities under Alternative D would benefit wildfire

suppression by reducing fuel loading associated with fire severity and intensity. The reduction in

fuel loading would be the result of using vegetation treatments to change vegetation community

composition and maintenance of livestock use throughout the planning area.

Many wildlife restrictions under Alternative D, including distance requirements for

surface-disturbing activities around greater sage-grouse leks in the Core Area and actions in

occupied pygmy rabbit habitat, are similar to Alternative B. However, Alternative D is less

restrictive outside the Core Area than Alternative B. Restrictions would result in adverse impacts

to fire suppression activities. This would potentially limit suppression actions and allow fires

detrimental to the landscape to grow larger and cause more impacts in terms of acres burned. The

restriction on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within 1⁄4 mile of active raptor nests may

adversely impact wildland fire suppression.

Reviewing fire suppression impacts to special status species on a case-by-case basis would result

in the same adverse impacts as described for Alternative A.

4.3.1.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative D, wildland fire would be used to restore fire-adapted ecosystems for a diversity

of plant types and to reduce hazardous fuels. Alternative D places less emphasis on fire and fuels

management for the use of resources than Alternative C, and is more similar to Alternative B with

respect to the use of fuels and fire to restore the natural processes of ecosystems.

Under Alternative D, a smaller amount of the planning area is open to wind-energy and mineral

development than under Alternative A, substantially smaller than under Alternative C, but more

than Alternative B. Reduced development would beneficially impact fire suppression in terms of

reduced potential for human-caused ignitions and increased infrastructure associated with this

type of development, which makes fire suppression actions more challenging than when working

on an undisturbed landscape. An adverse impact may result due to a reduction in the supporting

road network associated with this development, which can be used strategically to suppress

wildfires. However, it is anticipated that this adverse impact would be negligible.

Trails and travel management allows use of existing roads and trails throughout most of the

planning area, with seasonal restrictions in certain locations. This could adversely impact wildland

fire management because of the increased potential for human-caused fire starts through increased

public access to areas with high fuel loading. Over time, Alternative D, like Alternative B, could

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Unplanned/Wildfire
754 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

result in more adverse impacts because redundant roads could be reclaimed, thereby reducing the

level of access from established roads for the purposes of implementing fire suppression actions.

Livestock grazing in relation to fire suppression activities would result in impacts similar to

those under Alternative C, more beneficial than Alternative B because higher utilization levels

of herbaceous forage could lead to less fuel buildup. Livestock grazing can be beneficial to

wildland fire suppression by reducing fuel loading through the use of grazing animals and

consequentially, a net reduction in extreme fire behavior. However, under Alternative D, like

alternatives A and C, approximately 10,000 acres are likely to be treated over the life of the plan

because of the emphasis on range infrastructure projects. This is opposed to Alternative B, under

which vegetation communities would be more aggressively treated to reduce fuel loading on the

landscape and improve overall ecological conditions, thereby eventually leading to less extreme

wildfire behavior in many areas of the planning area.

Recreational activities can adversely impact wildland fire suppression with an increased likelihood

for human-caused ignitions in SRMAs and ERMAs, where both concentrated and dispersed use

increases the likelihood for unintended fire starts. Alternative D is more likely to trend away

from an urban recreation setting to a more primitive recreation setting with an emphasis on

nonmotorized vehicle recreation, similar to Alternative B. This could reduce adverse impacts to

the fire management program compared to those identified under alternatives A and C.

4.3.1.3.5.4. Special Designations

While WSA management could result in some adverse impacts to fire suppression in terms

of limiting potential suppression actions and access in these areas, this is generally not the

case because fires can be contained within roads surrounding the designated areas. A notable

exception could be in the Copper Mountain WSA, because the fuel loading outside the WSA is as

heavy or heavier than fuel loading within the WSA and a restricted response to fire could cause

the fire to move onto surrounding private lands. This case is a limited example because there is

very little fire history for the area.

ACEC management under Alternative D could limit fire suppression actions if roads have been

reclaimed to help the resource that would benefit from ACEC designation. The reduction in roads

to access wildfires could restrict suppression tactics and allow fires to grow larger and potentially

cause resource damage. The increased acreage designated as ACECs under Alternative D

would lead to more complex challenges associated with suppression actions in terms of resource

protection stipulations and actions that can be taken in ACECs to suppress wildland fires. This

would be especially true of the expanded Green Mountain ACEC, the Twin Creek ACEC, the

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC, and the Lander Slope ACEC, which comprise an area with

the highest proportion of fire starts in the planning area. A beneficial impact of the South Pass

Historic Landscape ACEC is the objective of reducing fuels in the WUI. This would be a beneficial

impact to fire suppression by reducing fuel loading before wildfires occur, and could allow for

more effective protection of homes and valuable cultural resources in the event of a local wildfire.

Adverse impacts to fire and fuels management from VRM classifications would be similar to

those described for Alternative A. However, because the amount of VRM Class I and II area is

greater under Alternative D, fire suppression tactics would be less flexible except in cases of

protecting human lives and safety.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Unplanned/Wildfire February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 755

4.3.2. Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels Treatments

4.3.2.1. Summary of Impacts

Prescribed fire management can be used to achieve measurable landscape-level or site-specific

objectives, such as reducing hazardous fuel loads inside and outside the WUI, creating diversity in

vegetation communities, enhancing livestock management, improving certain desirable wildlife

habitats, regenerating decadent vegetation communities, and improving watershed health. Most

prescribed fires in the planning area occur in mountain shrub and aspen communities. Non-fire

fuels treatments will occur in all vegetation types, from Wyoming sagebrush steppe to conifer

forests and aspen stands. Stipulations from other resource management that allow or prohibit

prescribed fires and fuels management in certain areas or at certain times of the year are direct

adverse impacts to fuels management.

4.3.2.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● The BLM fire and fuels program is guided by the principles of reducing hazardous fuels

loading within the WUI as well as high fuel loading across the vegetated landscape. The

program is complementary to wildlife and vegetation management by restoring fire-dependent

ecosystems and enhancing vegetation communities and wildlife habitat.

● Fire and fuels management will be a priority within the WUI as well as within areas of the

natural landscape that would be detrimentally impacted by wildfire.

● Air quality standards do not currently affect the ability to perform prescribed burns; however,

more stringent air quality standards would likely affect prescribed burn implementation.

● Development of infrastructure such as for oil and gas or wind energy limit or close areas to

the use of fire as a vegetation treatment tool.

● The Lander Field Office will continue to treat vegetation in the planning area with prescribed

fire, mechanical treatments, and chemical treatments. It is expected that the average annual

acres treated in the future will remain similar to average annual acres treated between

2006-2009, except for under Alternative B, under which additional fuels treatment would

be undertaken.

● Landscape-level fire and non-fire fuels treatments that meet vegetation management and

wildlife habitat requirements will substantially increase the amount of acres treated annually

in the planning area. The use of landscape-level treatments will be enhanced or hindered

depending on a number of factors, including livestock grazing management decisions that

allow proper post-treatment and long-term management; increasing industrial and urban

development in the WUI; future wildlife habitat considerations; and the ability to coordinate

with adjacent state, federal and private landowners.

4.3.2.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.3.2.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Short- and long-term impacts from prescribed fire and fuels management would assist in achieving

program specific management objectives as well as other resource objectives.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels Treatments
756 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Air quality regulations are the most restrictive and could adversely impact fire and fuels

management in federal Class I and Class II areas (e.g., the Wind River Slope on the WRIR).

Regulations in these areas could restrict some prescribed burn activity, depending on the

prevailing wind and disturbance to population centers. Most often, in fuels treatments using fire,

the greatest concern is smoke dispersion and distance from population centers. In these cases air

quality regulations are neither a beneficial or adverse impact on prescribed fire activities. While

there is a marginal difference among the alternatives in the management prescriptions for air

quality, it is unlikely that these management differences would have measurable differences in

impacts to the fire and fuels program.

Soil resource management can limit vegetation management options through restrictions on

ground-disturbing activities when the ground is frozen and, in such cases, would result in an

adverse impact to fire and fuels management. Many shrub and forest/woodland treatments are

ideally implemented when the ground is frozen and vegetation is lower in moisture and brittle.

Additionally, restricting winter fuels treatments reduces the amount of acres potentially treated in

the year. A BLM Agency Administrator may grant an exception to this standard stipulation.

Forest and woodland management complements fire and fuels management and is a beneficial

impact to fuels management. Forest treatment objectives can also accomplish fuels reduction

objectives, especially in the WUI. Mechanical treatments completed in forests and woodlands can

also create fuels breaks that could be used to contain prescribed fire and reduce adverse impacts

from fire by reducing the fire severity associated with heavy 1,000-hour fuel loading. Forest

treatments also complement fire and fuels management by achieving fuels goals of restoring

ecosystem health. Additionally, the use of wildland fire is a management tool in forests and

woodlands and is complementary to the landscape level use of fire.

Grassland and shrubland management actions across all alternatives would result in beneficial

impacts to fire and fuels management because they support the use of vegetation treatments to

increase forage production and restore rangeland ecosystems. This conversion to early seral

plant communities achieves fuels management objectives and is integral to cooperator buy-in to

initiating prescribed burning and mechanical treatments on rangelands throughout the planning

area. This impact would be similar across all alternatives with minor differences in vegetation

management focus. However, to the extent that livestock grazing can adversely impact aspen from

grazing/browsing or if treatments cannot be accomplished, then livestock grazing management

adversely impacts the fire and fuels program.

Management actions for invasive species would benefit fuels management by reducing nonnative

species, such as cheatgrass. Nonnative species such as cheatgrass adversely impacts fire and fuels

management. It limits the use of prescribed fire and most mechanical treatments because of the

high probability of proliferation of the annual grass in certain areas after fuels treatment.

Seasonal big game winter range and parturition areas could limit fuels management actions if

roads have been reclaimed to benefit the resource associated with these areas. The reduction in

roads to access potential treatment areas could restrict management strategies associated with

prescribed fire or wildland fire utilized to achieve resource benefits. This would result in an

adverse impact to fire and fuels management. Seasonal closures would also adversely impact

fuels treatments by limiting surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in elk winter range and

constraining the time available to treat vegetation, hindering the fuels management program's

ability to treat areas in the planning area over the next 20 years.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels

Treatments February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 757

Overall, wildlife habitat management is beneficial to fuels management. The wildlife program's

emphasis on using a full suite of treatment tools to improve habitat types and adjustment of

wildlife herd objectives may promote beneficial impacts to vegetative communities and support

fuels treatment objectives.

Greater sage-grouse management is a beneficial impact to fuels management if it emphasizes a

mosaic of various vegetative seral conditions across the landscape, which reduces the adverse

impacts of high vegetative fuel loading and restores vegetation communities. The restriction on

vegetative treatments within either 1⁄4 mile or 0.6 mile from an active greater sage-grouse lek

adversely impacts the fire and fuels program by limiting areas that would benefit from fuels

treatments. Seasonal stipulations for greater sage-grouse result in a minor adverse impacts

because of limits on time available to complete fuels treatments.

Limits on surface-disturbing activities in occupied pygmy rabbit habitat would adversely

impact fuels management. Pygmy rabbit habitat in the planning area is often mountain shrub

communities, a vegetation type that would benefit from the use of prescribed fire or potentially

wildland fire that is utilized to achieve resource benefits.

Implementation of the current FMP (BLM 2004b) would be influenced by constraints to protect

and conserve habitat of special status species. Conservation measures to protect and restore

species listed under the ESA would potentially result in adverse long-term impacts to fuels

management within listed species habitat. Following the completion of the RMP revision, the

FMP would be revised or amended during the annual review process to reflect any changes in

the new RMP.

Where there is livestock grazing, it is BLM policy that prescribed burn areas are generally

deferred from grazing a minimum of two consecutive growing seasons post-burn, based on

management objectives consistent with Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines

for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land

Management (Appendix J (p. 1537)) and IM No. WY-2005-018. The BLM will use resource

objectives, environmental and rangeland conditions to identify appropriate recovery time and

post-treatment management of prescribed burn areas. Land ownership patterns in the planning

area can impede the ability to conduct prescribed burns. Prescribed burns generally are not

possible where domestic livestock producers are unable to absorb the cost of the deferral period,

as required by BLM policy, which could be alleviated by the development of a grass bank. The

inability to adhere to this policy could adversely impact prescribed fire management by restricting

the ability to use prescribed fire as a management tool. Non-fire fuels management (chemical,

hand cutting, and mechanical) could have similar adverse impacts due to post-treatment grazing

management and unanticipated long-term use, development on and surrounding the treatment,

and overall management of the area. The use of wildland fire that is utilized to achieve resource

benefits (Wildland Fire Use) would also be adversely impacted by the same grazing management

constraints that will not allow sufficient post-burn rest similar to that for prescribed fire.

While WSA management could result in some adverse impacts to fuels management in terms of

limiting potential fuels treatment actions and access in these areas, this is generally not the case

because fuels management options in these areas can be implemented through hand cutting or the

use of prescribed fire if determined to be suitable for the landscape. Wildland fire that is utilized

to achieve resource benefits is ideally suited to WSAs and results in a beneficial impact to that

application under the fire and fuels program.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels Treatments
758 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Management of areas such as Green Mountain, Red Canyon, South Pass Historic Mining Area,

and Lander Slope would also be beneficial to fire and fuels management in its support for

management of healthy vegetation communities to support wildlife. This would complement

fuels management objectives of managing vegetation to reduce fuels loading and restoring

ecosystem health.

There is little to no difference among the alternatives with regard to land tenure decisions, which

would adversely impact fuels management because some broken land status areas not identified

for disposal are very difficult to access and are difficult to manage. These areas could also create

large WUI areas that require substantial time and resources to treat, as opposed to treating larger

blocks of BLM-administered land that dominate the planning area. Notable examples are found

on the Lander Slope, the South Pass area, and on scattered BLM holdings in the Dubois area.

Because there is little difference among the alternatives, this adverse impact to the fire and fuels

program is not further analyzed.

The alternatives vary in their minerals and realty management. Development associated

with minerals and realty actions such as wind-energy projects, could adversely impact fuels

management by fracturing the landscape and making the use of prescribed fire extremely

challenging and increasing the complexity of the burn. Using wildland fire to achieve resource

benefits could be difficult in these situations. A beneficial impact could be the increased

supporting road network that is associated with wind-energy and mineral development, which

could be used strategically to break up the landscape when using prescribed fire so as to not burn

too much of the vegetation community deemed critical for wildlife habitat. The areas could

also warrant fuels treatments, not to restore ecological health with fire or surrogate mechanical

treatments, but simply to reduce fuel loading to protect human infrastructure. This would be an

adverse impact from wind and mineral development.

4.3.2.3.2. Alternative A

4.3.2.3.2.1. Program Management

Alternative A uses prescribed fire and fuels management to meet fire and fuels resource

management objectives, reduce hazardous fuels, reintroduce fire in its natural role to the

ecosystem, and improve plant community health. Wildland fire that is utilized to achieve

resource benefits could occur throughout the planning area, but has not been attempted on any

scale because of management restrictions and the general uncertainty of the approach outside

wilderness areas in the region. Approximately 300 acres per year of short-term disturbance over

20 years is anticipated from prescribed fire under Alternative A. All acres of this disturbance

would be reclaimed. For mechanical fuels treatments under this alternative, approximately 500

acres per year for 20 years of short-term disturbance are anticipated, and all 500 acres would be

reclaimed. Under Alternative A, little to no funds would be expended on non-infrastructure types

of range improvement projects such as vegetation treatments and fuels reduction because all

available funds would be invested in rangeland infrastructure.

4.3.2.3.2.2. Resources

Under Alternative A, avoiding soil disturbance on slopes over 25 percent and within 500

feet of surface water could may adversely impact fuels management, although erosion from

soil-disturbing activities could be mitigated with practices such as contour falling and treatments

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels

Treatments February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 759

when ground conditions are stable. Similarly, restoration of surface water systems, often directly

within the riparian-wetland area, is important to achieving fuels reduction objectives (especially

with the presence of riparian-wetland INNS such as Russian olive) and restoring riparian-wetland

system function and ecosystem health. A beneficial impact would be the management action of

achieving PFC in riparian-wetland systems, which complements fuels management in these areas.

Prohibiting surface-disturbing and disrupting activities within 3⁄4 mile of active raptor nests is

considered an adverse impact to fuels management. Similarly, protections for the benefit of

greater sage-grouse would result in adverse impacts to fuels management. Alternative A has

moderate greater sage-grouse protections with moderately adverse impacts to the fire programs.

4.3.2.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Lands and realty actions can adversely impact fuels management, because some areas with

mixed ownership patterns not identified for disposal are very difficult to access and are difficult

to manage. These areas also might create large WUI areas that require substantial time and

resources to treat, as opposed to treating larger blocks of BLM-administered land that dominate

the planning area. Notable examples are found on the Lander Slope and in the Dubois area.

Under Alternative A, most of the planning area is open to wind-energy and mineral development.

This development could adversely impact fuels management in terms of fracturing the landscape

and making the use of prescribed fire extremely challenging, and increasing the complexity of

the burn. Wildland fire that is utilized to achieve resource benefits might be impossible in these

situations. A beneficial impact might be the increased supporting road network associated with

wind-energy and mineral development, which can be used strategically to break up the landscape

when using prescribed fire so as to not burn too much of the vegetation community that might be

deemed critical for wildlife habitat.

Under Alternative A, trails and travel management allows use of existing roads and trails

throughout most of the planning area, with seasonal restrictions in special designations. This

would be a beneficial impact in terms of allowing access to treatment areas and the use of

existing roads for strategic breaks in prescribed fire and wildland fire that is utilized to achieve

resource benefits.

Livestock grazing could be beneficial to fuels management objectives under Alternative A,

especially in the WUI, because grazing would reduce the amount of fine fuels available in

the event of a wildfire. Research has shown that certain plant communities may benefit from

low-severity disturbances, such as grazing, before burning in order to increase their resilience

to more severe disturbances, such as fire (Davies et al. 2009b). However, an adverse impact of

grazing would be the potential proliferation of nonnative invasive species, as grazing livestock

utilize desirable native grasses. Nonnative species such as cheatgrass often render an area

untreatable with fire if the species dominates an area. There would be the same number of acres

treated for fuels reduction as historically has been the case (500 acres per year) because range

improvement projects would emphasize infrastructure and not vegetation type projects.

4.3.2.3.2.4. Special Designations

ACECs with seasonal travel management closures to protect ACEC values could adversely impact

fuels management. The closures reduce the timeframes available to conduct fuels management

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels Treatments
760 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

projects. The ACECs with seasonal closures are Green Mountain, Whiskey Mountain, Red

Canyon and Lander Slope. The remainder of the ACECs would not impact fuels management.

4.3.2.3.3. Alternative B

4.3.2.3.3.1. Program Management

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative B uses prescribed fire and fuels management to achieve fire

and fuels management objectives, reduce hazardous fuel loads, and reintroduce fire into its natural

role in the ecosystem. This approach could result in a beneficial impact to fire management in

the planning area. For mechanical fuels treatments under this alternative, approximately 1,500

acres per year for 20 years of short-term disturbance are anticipated, with all 1,500 acres (1,000

more acres than Alternative A) to be reclaimed.

4.3.2.3.3.2. Resources

Under Alternative B, protections for soil and riparian-wetland areas would limit fuels management

with more adverse impacts to the fuels program than under Alternative A. Buffers around

riparian-wetland areas may result in adverse impacts to fire management when they inhibit

achieving fuels reduction objectives (especially with the presence of riparian-wetland invasives

such as Russian olive). A beneficial impact would result from achieving PFC in riparian-wetland

systems, which complements fuels management.

Prohibiting surface-disturbing and disrupting activities within 1.5 miles of active raptor nests and

limiting surface disturbance in buffers around greater sage-grouse leks would have more of an

adverse impact than Alternative A to fuels management, such as prescribed fire, especially in the

mountain shrub-woodland interface, which demonstrates the greatest benefit from mechanical

and fire treatments.

Alternative B VRM would limit more surface disturbance, which would beneficially impact fire

and fuels except to the extent that additional roads improve access for the fuels program.

4.3.2.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Minerals and realty management, including wind-energy development, under Alternative B is

substantially more restrictive than under Alternative A with beneficial impacts to fire and fuels

management.

Under Alternative B, less land is open for wind-energy and mineral development and in lands that

are open, there are more restrictions on development. While the reduced amount of development

in comparison to Alternative A would reduce the associated adverse impacts, there would also

be reduced roads that would facilitate access for fuels treatments and fire suppression. Overall,

Alternative B has more beneficial impacts to the fuels program than Alternative A.

Trails and travel management under Alternative B is limited compared to alternatives A and

C. Use of existing roads and trails would be beneficial to fuels management, while seasonal

restrictions in special designations would be an adverse impact. Access to treatment areas and the

use of existing roads for strategic breaks is important to achieve resource benefits from prescribed

burning and, if appropriate to resource objectives, wildland fire.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels

Treatments February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 761

Under Alternative B, livestock grazing could be beneficial to fuels management objectives,

especially in the WUI, as grazing livestock would reduce fine fuels available in the event of a

wildfire. The establishment of reserve common allotments would also be a beneficial impact to

fuels management because it allows greater flexibility in treating areas with prescribed fire and

in resting them subsequently. This could better enable the utilization of wildland fire to achieve

resource benefits. In addition, Alternative B emphasizes non-infrastructure range improvement

projects, which would beneficially impact the fire and fuels program. Finally, Alternative B

beneficially impacts the fuels program by making INNS introduction and spread less likely.

INNS, such as cheatgrass, often render an area untreatable with fire where they become dominant,

as fires burn hotter and increase the likelihood that cheatgrass or other INNS will continue to

revegetate and outcompete native species.

4.3.2.3.3.4. Special Designations

Special designations would beneficially impact the natural fire regime under Alternative B in the

long term, with additional acreage protections and stipulations that restrict disturbances in these

areas. The opportunity to manage historically natural landscapes under this alternative would

allow the restoration of areas using natural processes and emphasize treatments suitable for the

landscape. Alternative B allows vegetation treatments and fuels management in ACECs. Many of

these ACECs contain WUI areas that would be beneficially impacted from prescribed fire and

other fuels management treatments.

Adverse impacts under this alternative would be restrictions on types of treatments. (Timing

limitations also limit fuels treatment in the Green Mountain area, but this is for wildlife protections

and not part of the ACEC prescriptions.) This would slow the restoration process in areas such as

Green Mountain, where aspen communities are in poor ecological health and mountain shrub

communities are decadent and dominated by late seral vegetation assemblages.

ACEC management under Alternative B could limit fuel treatment options if roads have been

reclaimed to help benefit the resource associated with the ACEC designation. A beneficial impact

of the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC would be the objective of reducing fuels in the

WUI. This would benefit fire suppression by reducing fuel loading before wildfires and could

allow for more effective protection of homes and valuable cultural resources in the event of

a wildfire.

4.3.2.3.4. Alternative C

4.3.2.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C uses prescribed fire and fuels management to meet fire and fuels resource

management objectives, reduce hazardous fuels, reintroduce fire in its natural role to the

ecosystem, and improve plant community health. In light of the emphasis on full suppression in

this alternative, it is likely that wildland fire would not be utilized to achieve resource benefits.

Similar to Alternative A, approximately 300 acres per year of short-term disturbance over 20

years is anticipated from prescribed fire under Alternative C. For mechanical fuels treatments

under this alternative, approximately 500 acres per year for 20 years of short-term disturbance is

anticipated. All acres of this disturbance would be reclaimed. Similar to Alternative A, little or

no funds would be expended on non-infrastructure types of range improvement projects such

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels Treatments
762 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

as vegetation treatments and fuels reduction because all available funds would be invested

in rangeland infrastructure.

4.3.2.3.4.2. Resources

Under Alternative C, avoiding soil disturbance for the protection of soil, water and

riparian-wetland resources would adversely impact fuels management unless these limitations

were mitigated to allow fuels treatment. Alternative C is more likely to achieve improvements in

riparian-wetland condition and PFC because infrastructure would be employed to fence out these

areas, which complements fuels management.

Prohibiting surface-disturbing and disrupting activities within 1⁄2 mile of active raptor nests

under Alternative C is less restrictive than Alternative A, but would still adversely impact fuels

management. Alternative C has the same greater sage-grouse management as Alternative A with

the same limited adverse impacts to the fire and fuels program, particularly in comparison to

Alternative B.

Alternative C VRM is similar to Alternative A, except less restrictive, with the same moderately

adverse impact to the fuels program by allowing more surface disturbance. However, as is further

analyzed below under Resource Uses, more development would improve fire management to the

extent that additional roads would be authorized improving access.

4.3.2.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative C, most of the planning area is open to wind-energy and mineral development

This development could adversely impact fuels management in terms of fracturing the landscape

and making the use of prescribed fire extremely challenging and increasing the complexity

of the burn Utilizing wildland fire to achieve resource benefits might be difficult in these

situations. A beneficial impact could be the increased supporting road network associated with

this wind-energy and mineral development, which could be used strategically to break up the

landscape when using prescribed fire so as to not burn too much of the vegetation community that

could be critical as wildlife habitat.

Trails and travel management under Alternative C allows use of existing roads and trails

throughout most of the planning area, with seasonal restrictions in special designations. This

would be a beneficial impact in terms of allowing access to treatment areas and the use of

existing roads for strategic breaks in prescribed fire and wildland fire that is utilized to achieve

resource benefits.

Livestock grazing could be beneficial to fuels management objectives, especially in the WUI, by

reducing fine fuels often associated with increased fire behavior. An adverse impact would be the

potential proliferation of INNS if improper livestock grazing management occurs INNS, such as

cheatgrass, often render an area untreatable with fire if the species dominates an area, leading to

a higher probability of wildfire burning at a fire return interval earlier than historic occurrence.

Livestock grazing management under this alternative, however, will utilize infrastructure types of

range improvements with less or no vegetation treatments or aspen or riparian-wetland treatments.

Alternative C, like Alternative A, would treat approximately one-third the acres as Alternative

B with resulting increased adverse impacts.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels

Treatments February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 763

4.3.2.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C, like Alternative A, affords minimum protections to NHTs and no protections to

the National Scenic Trails. It is likely that more surface disturbance with accompanying adverse

impacts to the fire and fuels program would result in comparison to Alternative B.

Alternative C manages areas that are designated as ACECs in other alternatives with standard

stipulations which will result in more surface disturbance and more development. Both of

these activities would adversely impact the fire and fuels program, although improved access

associated with development may, on a site-specific basis, have beneficial impacts. On a shortand long-term basis, reduced limitations on the use of prescribed fire in an ACEC or within the

historical setting of an ACEC (or Congressionally Designated Trail) may beneficially impact

the fire and fuels program.

4.3.2.3.5. Alternative D

4.3.2.3.5.1. Program Management

Similar to alternatives A, B, and C, Alternative D uses prescribed fire and fuels management

to achieve fire and fuels resource management objectives, reduce hazardous fuel loads, and

reintroduce fire in its natural role into the ecosystem. This approach could result in a beneficial

impact to fire management in the planning area. Opportunities for wildland fire that are utilized to

achieve resource benefits would be limited under Alternative D. Approximately 500 acres per

year of short-term disturbance over 20 years is anticipated from prescribed fire treatment and 500

acres per year of short-term disturbance over 20 years is anticipated from mechanical treatments,

the same as under alternatives A and C and approximately one-third that under Alternative B.

4.3.2.3.5.2. Resources

Under Alternative D, allowable emission levels are the same as alternatives A and C and

potentially less restrictive than under Alternative B. Soil, water, and riparian-wetland protections

are similar to those under alternatives A and C within the same moderately adverse impacts to fire

and fuels, although substantially less adverse than under Alternative B.

Forest treatment objectives can also accomplish fuels reduction objectives, especially in the WUI.

Mechanical treatments completed in forest and woodlands can also create fuel breaks that could

be used to contain prescribed fire and reduce the adverse impacts from fire by reducing the fire

severity associated with heavy 1,000-hour fuel loading. Specifically under Alternative D, forest

treatments also complement prescribed fire and fuels management because they achieve fuels

goals of restoring ecosystem health and, in areas where it is appropriate, allow the use of all

silvicultural techniques to actively manage forests associated with 1,000-hour fuel loads. Wildland

fire that is utilized to achieve resource benefits is supported by forest and woodland management

under Alternative D, although not as likely a management decision as under Alternative B.

Alternatives A, C, and D could result in moderate adverse impacts to the use of wildland

fire for resource benefit, the use of prescribed fire, and some mechanical treatments. Equal

support for restoration of native plant communities associated with fuels management and

providing for livestock forage on BLM-administered lands has historically made rangeland

vegetation treatments difficult to implement to ensure the long-term reestablishment of healthy

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels Treatments
764 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

early seral plant communities. Alternative D also could result in beneficial impacts to fuels

management from the management of shrubland and grassland communities using seral-state

attributes described in the NRCS ecological site descriptions, which, if properly implemented,

are synonymous with the tools provided by fire and fuels management. Grassland and shrubland

management actions under Alternative B would be most beneficial to fire and fuels management,

with less substantial beneficial impacts under alternatives A, C, and D. Restoration of these

surface water (riparian) systems, often directly within the riparian-wetland area, is important to

achieving fuels reduction objectives (especially with the presence of riparian-wetland INNS

such as Russian olive) and restoring riparian-wetland system function and ecosystem health. A

beneficial impact would be the management action of achieving PFC in riparian-wetland systems,

which complements fuels management objectives.

Cheatgrass adversely impacts fire and fuels management. It limits the use of prescribed fire and

most mechanical treatments because of the high probability of proliferation of the annual grass

after fuels treatment. Aggressive management of INNS, notably cheatgrass, would be a beneficial

impact of invasive species management and considered to be the same under alternatives D and B.

Wildlife management actions under Alternative D are similar to Alternative B but less restrictive.

These protections, such as restrictions to surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in elk winter

range would adversely impact fuels management because they constrain the time available to

treat vegetation and hinder the fuels program's ability to treat areas in the planning area over the

next 20 years. Protections for raptors and greater sage-grouse would adversely impact the fire

and fuels program but less than under Alternative B, which has more restrictive prescriptions.

Wildlife protections, including limitations on surface disturbance for the benefit of wildlife under

Alternative D, would have more adverse impacts than under alternatives A and C.

4.3.2.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative D, less land is open for wind-energy and mineral development than under

Alternative A or C. This limited development could still adversely impact fuels management in

terms of fracturing the landscape and making the use of prescribed fire extremely challenging

and increasing the complexity of the burn. Wildland fire that is utilized to achieve resource

benefits might be impossible in these situations. A beneficial impact could be the increased

supporting road network associated with wind-energy and mineral development, which could

be used strategically to break up the landscape when using prescribed fire to meet site-specific

resource objectives. Other areas might also warrant fuels treatments, not to restore ecological

health with fire or surrogate mechanical treatments, but simply to reduce fuel loading to protect

human infrastructure. Required Design Features would beneficially impact fuels by further

limiting the size and location of surface disturbance.

Trails and travel management under Alternative D is similar to Alternative B, except that slightly

fewer areas are closed to motorized travel. Use of existing roads and trails would be beneficial to

fuels management, while seasonal restrictions for wildlife protection would be an adverse impact.

The Biological Resources section addresses this in detail. Access to treatment areas and the use of

existing roads for strategic breaks in prescribed fire and wildland fire that is utilized to achieve

resource benefits is important to successful prescribed burning, and potentially the wildland fire

that is utilized to achieve resource benefits.

Livestock grazing under Alternative D could be beneficial to fuels management objectives

in the WUI because livestock grazing would reduce the fine fuels available in the event of a

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels

Treatments February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 765

wildfire. Adverse impacts to the fire and fuels program under Alternative D would be similar

to those under alternatives A and C. Alternative D would not result in the beneficial impacts of

Alternative B, which allows for more residual grass in grazing allotments as a result of an overall

more conservative livestock grazing strategy. Alternative B could allow for more extensive use

of prescribed fire and allow for more successful reestablishment of desirable native herbaceous

species after burns. The establishment of reserve common allotments also would result in a

beneficial impact to fuels management under Alternative D. Reserve common allotments allow

greater flexibility in treating and properly resting areas with prescribed fire, and may enhance

the utilization of wildland fire to achieve resource benefits. In addition, under Alternative

D, infrastructure projects would be the emphasis for range improvement projects, as under

alternatives A and C, with fewer beneficial impacts than would result under Alternative B. Over

the long term, this difference would likely result in some 20,000 fewer acres being treated than

under Alternative B, which would have the same moderate to substantial adverse impact on the

fire and fuels program as alternatives A and C.

4.3.2.3.5.4. Special Designations

Special designations would beneficially impact fuels management under Alternative D.

Alternative D includes more acreage protections and stipulations that restrict disturbances in these

areas than Alternative A and substantially more than Alternative C. The opportunity to manage

historically natural landscapes under Alternative D would allow the restoration of areas using

natural processes and emphasize treatments suitable for the landscape. Alternative D allows

vegetative treatment and fuels management, where feasible, in ACECs such as Lander Slope, Red

Canyon, and Green Mountain, where there are interfaces between communities that would benefit

from prescribed fire and other fuels management treatments and ACEC stipulations.

Adverse impacts from Alternative D would include restrictions on the types of treatments that

can occur if they do not directly complement wildlife habitat protected by the ACEC, such as

in Green Mountain or East Fork. This would slow the restoration process in areas such as

Green Mountain, where aspen communities are in poor ecological health and mountain shrub

communities are decadent and dominated by late seral vegetation communities that might have

already missed an historic fire return interval.

ACEC management under Alternative D, like Alternative B, could limit fuels treatment options

if roads have been reclaimed to benefit the resource associated with the ACEC designation.

A beneficial impact of ACEC management, such as in the South Pass Historic Mining Area

ACEC, would be the objective of reducing fuels in the WUI. This would benefit fire management

by reducing fuel loading and could allow for more effective protection of homes and valuable

cultural resources in the event of a wildfire.

4.3.3. Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Under all alternatives, the need for stabilization and rehabilitation following a fire event is

evaluated using an interdisciplinary approach to protect natural resources and threats to human

health and safety. The guidelines for development of this plan are outlined in BLM Handbook

H-1742-1, Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation. BLM management of

stabilization and rehabilitation does not vary by alternative so no analysis of impacts on this

program is required. Additional information regarding the stabilization and rehabilitation

programs is found in the Stabilization and Rehabilitation section in Chapter 3.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Stabilization and Rehabilitation
766 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.4. Biological Resources

4.4.1. Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen Communities

Management actions restricting forest management practices or contributing to the decline in

abundance, distribution, or health of forests or woodlands, and availability, quality, and quantity

of forest products are considered adverse impacts. Conversely, beneficial impacts include actions

that enhance management, improve health, and protect and restore forests and woodlands in the

planning area.

Direct impacts to forests and woodlands (forest products are a byproduct of and part of the

following analysis of impacts to forest and woodland resources) result from management actions

that affect forest structure, species composition/diversity, vigor, health, vegetative community

type, or other forest/woodland characteristics. Management actions that limit timber availability,

restrict timber extraction methods, and restrict areas where forest and woodland treatments can

occur also have direct adverse impacts to forest products. Indirect impacts to forests, woodlands,

and forest products include any change in forest and woodland characteristics as a result of natural

forces (e.g., insect and disease and fire and drought), management actions for other resources,

or failure to implement management actions.

Natural and human activities can produce beneficial and adverse impacts to forest and woodland

communities (e.g., natural regeneration). In a mature forest or woodland, natural regeneration

restores genetic diversity, sustained yield, and uneven-aged stands to benefit maintenance of a

forest or woodland ecological site; ensures continuous production of forest products; facilitates

insect and disease control; and produces economic benefits through proper land use, soil and

water conservation, and eliminating the cost of planting. Alternatively, natural regeneration can

introduce conifers into aspen stands, thereby reducing the size of or out-competing the aspen

stands. See Map 47 for primary forest resource areas across the planning area.

4.4.1.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternative C results in the greatest projected total surface disturbance, followed by alternatives

A, D, and B. Surface disturbance could result in adverse impacts by contributing to the decline

in abundance, distribution, or health of forests and woodlands and the availability, quality, and

quantity of forest products. Alternative C would allow the most motorized vehicle use and would

result in the most new road construction, followed by Alternative A and then Alternative B.

Motorized vehicle use could degrade forest health by disturbing soil and vegetation, leading to

increased erosion. Motorized vehicle use could increase the risk of unplanned ignitions and

provide access for unauthorized wood cutting. Alternative C, followed by alternatives A and B,

implements the most silvicultural practices to actively manage forests and woodlands. More

intense forest management practices could have a beneficial impact on forest and woodland

health and forest products by increasing availability and reducing the risk of landscape-level

stand replacement wildfires that occur naturally in forested areas in the planning area and are

generally associated with forested stands that are not managed (historic conditions). Alternative

C would result in the most beneficial impacts, from a silvicultural standpoint, to forests so long

as management practices to increase forest product availability also improve forest health.

Alternative B provides the most forest and woodland landscape beneficial impact from a natural

ecology standpoint in terms of emphasizing natural processes that dominate in these systems.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Biological Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 767

4.4.1.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● The condition, species content, and vitality of the forest and woodland ecosystem are a

function of the soils, topography, slope/aspect, and microclimate and climatic forces specific

to the area.

● A complete forest or woodland inventory is available for only a portion of the planning area.

● Under all alternatives, Wyoming Forestry BMPs will be incorporated and utilized to the

fullest extent possible.

● Silvicultural treatments will be used to promote forest and woodland health, contribute to

sustainable timber production, and enhance wildlife habitat value. Silvicultural treatments are

considered long-term impacts. The use of clear-cutting varies by alternative.

● Vegetative treatments will vary in forest and woodland areas depending on the goals (e.g., fuel

reduction in a WUI area) and the most appropriate treatment method.

● Aspen stands are generally in poor condition across the planning area due to limited seedling

and sapling regeneration as a result of a number of factors, including ungulate browsing,

conifer encroachment, and lack of recent fire disturbance.

● Stands managed for old growth will follow Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (Public

Law 108-148) Section 102 for maintaining and managing these stands. There are limited areas

managed for old growth features.

● Insect and disease mortality is a substantial concern in lodgepole pine and limber pine stands

in the planning area. Accelerated salvage harvesting of the insect- and disease-killed trees

is anticipated in the short term (years 1 through 10). Probable annual harvest levels and

acreage disturbed in the years to follow (years 11 through 20) are anticipated to decrease as

priority treatable areas are harvested.

● Forests and woodlands are important for watershed values, visual resources, and wildlife

habitats. Some of these values are natural, some are sociological. For example, wildlife need

habitats, not visual quality. Sociological, economic, and cultural influences of humans and

must be considered in forest management.

● Mechanical forest treatments (soil erosion, etc.) could adversely impact water quality in the

short term, but overall, the consequences of these treatments are anticipated to be negligible

depending on treatment size and type.

● Management practices include removing encroaching conifers from aspen stands to release

the stand and improve aspen stand health in some locations. Most woodlands (see “woodland”

in the Glossary) will continue in succession until disturbed by natural causes.

● Forest health, forest restoration, and hazardous fuels reduction objectives will be the major

determining factors in forest management.

● Forested areas in the planning area are in fire regime groups III, IV, or V. Fire regime group III

is defined as mixed severity with a return interval of 35 to 100 years; the Douglas-fir stands

are primarily in this fire regime group. The limber pine and juniper woodlands and the aspen

forests/woodlands are in fire regime group III. The lodgepole pine and spruce-fir stands are in

fire regime group IV, which is defined as an infrequent (return interval of 35 to 200 or more

years) stand replacement fire. Therefore, clear-cut units approximating natural disturbance

patterns are acceptable in established Wyoming BLM guidelines. Primary management

options will emphasize thinning, removal of insects and diseases affecting trees, and partial

overstory removals, where appropriate.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities
768 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Up to 700 acres of woodland (aspen, juniper, and limber pine) could be treated annually,

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

will continue. The actual number of permits issued and estimated volumes will vary annually

based on public demand, although the trend is upward for over-the-counter permitted sales

in the planning area based upon 2005–2009 totals and will not vary by alternative. There

would be no new road construction to meet this demand. The volume of commercial forest

product sales will not increase, will not vary across alternatives, and will depend on factors

outside BLM management activities.

4.4.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Types of project impacts to forests, woodlands, and forest products under the alternatives

are similar; however, the intensity of impacts is anticipated to vary by alternative. Therefore,

impacts to forests, woodlands, and forest products from surface-disturbing activities and

proactive management actions are described under individual alternatives. Alternative C would

result in the greatest projected total surface disturbance, followed by alternatives A, D, and B.

Surface disturbance could result in adverse impacts by contributing to the decline in abundance,

distribution, or health of forests and woodlands and the availability, quality, and quantity of forest

products. Alternative C allows the most motorized vehicle use and would likely result in the

most user-created new trails, followed by alternatives A, D, and B. Motorized vehicle use could

degrade forest health by disturbing soil and vegetation, leading to increased erosion, and could

increase the risk of unplanned ignitions and provide access for unauthorized wood cutting.

Alternative C, followed by alternatives A, D, and B, allows the most silvicultural practices to

actively manage forests and woodlands. More intense forest management practices could have a

beneficial impact on forest and woodland health and forest products by increasing availability

and reducing the risk of landscape-level disturbances. Alternative C would result in the most

beneficial impacts to forests, so long as management practices to increase forest product

availability also improve forest health. However, funding for forest management practices is not

likely to be available in sufficient amounts for these differences to result in anything more than

minor differences in impacts among the alternatives. See the Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands,

and Aspen Communities section in Chapter 3 for an explanation of the impact of reduced demand

for forest products on forest management.

Forest management, including timber harvest, would contribute to improving overall forest

health throughout the planning area. These types of actions would reduce the potential for

landscape-level wildfires, and enhance age and species diversity. These specific proactive

management actions common to all alternatives would result in beneficial impacts to forest,

woodlands, and forest products by restoring historic processes, composition, and structures of

forests and woodlands, and thereby maintaining a harvest level of forest products that supports

these objectives.

4.4.1.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Although the types of impacts to forest and woodlands under all alternatives are similar, the

intensity of these impacts is expected to vary by alternative. The following paragraphs describe

potential impacts common to all alternatives.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 769

Air quality conditions in the area at the time of proposed forest and woodland treatments could

restrict treatments to maintain air quality standards. These restrictions would result in potential

short-term adverse impacts to vegetative treatments, such as planning and timing restrictions to

minimize emissions associated with fugitive dust or smoke. Smoke dispersion is probably the

most important concern and potential restriction of forest and woodland treatments involving fire.

Soil resource management can limit forest management options with restrictions on

ground-disturbing activities when ground is frozen. In areas such as Dubois, where forested tracts

are isolated and where primary forested stands are not restricted by seasonal wildlife closures,

this could shorten the available time in any given year to complete forest treatments. Soil

resource management can be beneficial to forest management by emphasizing protocol that

reduces erosion and protects natural resources.

Fire and fuels management complements forest and woodlands management. A landscape-level

approach to vegetation management and the over-the-counter sales of wood products to achieve

fuels objectives would result in beneficial impacts to forest management by helping to restore

these communities and reduce fuel loading and risk of long-term damage from landscape-level

wildfire. The BLM does not anticipate that commercial sales would result in any more than a

minor impact (adverse or beneficial) to forest health under any alternative.

INNS may adversely impact forest and woodland resources by altering fire behavior in these

communities and leading to greater loss of habitat. This is notably the case in juniper and limber

pine woodland areas infested with cheatgrass.

Limitations on surface disturbance such as Required Design Features that restrict road placement

for the benefit of wildlife and greater sage-grouse, would adversely impact the sale of forest

products, but would beneficially impact forest resources in the long term by preventing the

degradation of riparian-wetland areas.

Short-term adverse impacts regarding the timing or location of vegetation treatments and the

availability of forest products could result from temporary CSU restrictions and seasonal NSO

restrictions in buffers for special status species and raptor nest sites in forests and woodlands.

Direct long-term adverse impacts to forest management will occur in localized areas where there

are known and new significant cultural resource sites, because these sites would require protection

and avoidance during forest and woodland management. The presence of cultural resource sites

could restrict the location of vegetative treatments and access roads, thereby decreasing access

and acreage available for forest and woodland treatments.

Oil and gas, wind-energy, and mineral development could adversely impact forest and woodland

habitat by fragmenting forested stands and increasing the potential for human-caused fires and the

spread of invasive species in these areas. These types of developments can also cause moderate

to major disturbances and negate the beneficial impacts of some forest and woodland habitat

treatments. The use of fire in these areas to restore forest and woodland habitat is more difficult

than on an undeveloped landscape because of proximity to infrastructure and conflicts with

resource uses. These types of resource developments can also reduce the acreage of forest and

woodlands available for management.

Recreational use in forest and woodland areas could result in indirect short-term adverse impacts

from unplanned ignitions and unauthorized woodcutting adjacent to permanent and dispersed

camping areas. Unless properly designated and managed, development of recreation trails, both

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities
770 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

motorized and nonmotorized, could adversely impact forests and woodlands through increased

soil erosion.

Potential impacts from VRM, NHTs and other historic resources, transportation, wildlife, and

special status species are anticipated to influence the location, size, and shape of forest and

woodland treatments and affect the locations and construction of access roads.

Seasonal restriction for forest and woodland management could apply to existing or newly

designated ACECs and WSAs. Across all alternatives, the BLM will manage WSAs as natural

areas where low-impact management tools are used to improve resource conditions, with no

commercial removal of timber products. These impacts would be consistent across all alternatives.

4.4.1.3.2. Alternative A

4.4.1.3.2.1. Program Management

Approximately 1,500 acres per year of short-term disturbance over 20 years are anticipated from

forest and woodland management (mechanical treatments and forest product sale areas) under

Alternative A. All acres of this disturbance would be reclaimed.

Under Alternative A, forest and woodland resources are managed in response to conditions on the

ground and objectives such as forest health, wildlife habitat requirements, and demand for forest

products using a variety of silvicultural treatment types. Overall forest health is balanced with

providing commercial and over-the-counter forest products to the public in a sustainable manner.

Clear-cuts of commercial forest stands (primarily used in lodgepole pine stands) are allowed on

areas up to 25 acres in size, not within 100 feet of riparian-wetlands, and on slopes only up to 45

percent for ground-based logging systems. Management is conducted in consideration of resource

needs and demand for forest products, with forest product harvest objectives established for the

Green Mountain and Lander Slope areas and on a case-by-case basis for the Red Canyon, South

Pass, and Dubois areas. Timber and over-the-counter forest product sales would not exceed

annual sustained yield capacity.

Forest replanting after timber sales or disturbance is on an as-needed basis. Similarly,

management of forest insect and disease outbreaks is implemented on a case-by-case basis.

Management and enhancement of aspen is emphasized in all forest management areas, while

woodland species such as juniper and limber pine are not specified.

Alternative A does not apply an MLP for the Beaver Rim area and thus does not have special

stipulations to protect unique plant communities in that area.

4.4.1.3.2.2. Resources

Under Alternative A, the BLM uses primarily mechanical treatments to maintain and enhance

forest resources. Forest product sales are in response to local and regional market demand

and on a case-by-case basis. Cut objectives are specified to allow harvest of timber on a

sustained-yield basis, with the overall objective of improving forest health. As indicated in

Chapter 3, sustainability could be difficult to ascertain with changing precipitation patterns and

potential long-term climate change.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 771

Management of soil resources under Alternative A could adversely impact forest management

by restricting ground-disturbing activities on slopes over 25 percent, which could limit areas

available for forest treatment if methods are determined to be ground disturbing. A notable

example is in the Green Mountain area, where most of the forest resources are in the planning

area. In the Green Mountain ACEC, more than 5,000 acres are on slopes in excess of 25 percent.

Additional soil stipulations on reclamation could also adversely impact forest management by

requiring soil stabilization on logging or treatment sites, which could make treatments cost more

than the value of forest products harvested.

Full suppression of wildfires in forested and woodland areas is likely under Alternative A. This

could be beneficial to forest resources by reducing the potential loss of timber resources and

habitat from uncontrolled fire. This would result in short-term beneficial impacts to forested areas

by limiting the short-term adverse impacts from high-severity fire on these areas. That could also

include increased erosion and loss of residual trees to reestablish burned areas. Adverse impacts

from this suppression approach would be continued loss of aspen due to lack of disturbance from

fire, and long-term fuels buildup, which could lead to landscape-level and high-severity wildfires

during the planning period as a result of years of full suppression of wildfires.

Under Alternative A, authorization of clear-cuts would have beneficial impacts to aspen

regeneration efforts where aspen are showing signs of decline, disease, or distress from

competition or otherwise are not functioning well. However, where aspen require treatment, not

being able to use commercial harvesting through clear-cuts would result in the loss of a valuable

tool for regeneration (Shepperd 2001). However, the success of commercial harvest depends

on an available wood market and a transportation system to remove the product (Shepperd

2001). Other methods of treatment can stimulate regeneration, but with fewer beneficial impacts

compared to clear-cutting.

Riparian-wetland management under Alternative A restricts surface-disturbing activities within

500 feet of surface water. This could adversely impact forest management by restricting areas,

but simple mitigation measures common to Wyoming Forestry BMPs can be implemented to

complete projects in these areas. Many of the projects in these areas would ultimately have

beneficial impacts on riparian-wetland systems by restoring aspen communities and improving

surface hydrology through the removal of younger-age-class conifers established in these

areas as a result of altering the natural fire regime. The objective of progress toward PFC in

riparian-wetland areas would be beneficial to forest management in many cases.

Management actions specific to wildlife and special status species could beneficially impact

forests and woodlands if they restrict activities that could adversely impact forest and woodland

health. An example of the beneficial impact of wildlife and special status species management to

forest and woodland management is the restoration of aspen stands, which is beneficial to forest

health and enhances wildlife habitat conditions.

Management actions specific to wildlife and special status species can also adversely impact

forests and woodlands if they restrict forest management practices or timber product sales with

seasonal closures, and individual species timing and distance stipulations that have the practical

effect of limiting access to an area to a short period that makes sales impossible. Wildlife and

wild/feral horse browsing in areas such as Green Mountain can adversely impact management

of aspen stands.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities
772 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.4.1.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative A, most of the planning area remains open to oil and gas and other minerals

development, and the extent of RFD of minerals facilities is the second-greatest under this

alternative. Where this potential development occurs in forest and woodland areas, it could

adversely impact this resource by contributing to a decline in abundance, distribution, and health

of forests and woodlands. The extent of most of the adverse impacts to forest and woodland

resources would be greatest during the life of the development operation, with most areas of

disturbance being reclaimed. Loss of forest and woodland areas as a result of oil and gas and

mineral development is expected to be a long-term adverse impact; forest and woodland areas

would not recover to predisturbance conditions over the next 20 to 30 years.

Most of the planning area is open to wind-energy development under Alternative A. Wind

development could adversely impact forest and woodland resources by removal and fragmentation

of these resources within a development site and supporting infrastructure. Similar to oil and

gas and mineral development, wind-energy development in forest and woodland habitat would

cause short-term and long-term adverse impacts.

Livestock grazing under Alternative A would have a continued adverse impact to aspen stands

and, to a lesser degree, cottonwood galleries, due to browsing pressure on these woodlands.

Intensive browsing pressure reduces the ability of these species to regenerate through suckering

and contributes to the eventual die off of entire stands.

Alternative A permits the use of motorized vehicles on existing roads and trails in most of the

planning area. The level of public access granted for motorized travel could adversely impact

forests and woodlands by increasing the potential for unplanned ignitions and unauthorized

woodcutting. However, allowing motorized vehicle use on existing roads and trails would also

beneficially impact forest products by allowing access for commercial timber harvest and sales of

over-the-counter wood products. Allowing motorized vehicle use in areas with limited travel

designations would result in road and trail proliferation that would increase erosion, degrade

vegetation, and increase the potential for unplanned ignitions in forest and woodland areas.

4.4.1.3.2.4. Special Designations

Special designations beneficially impact forests and woodlands if they place additional restrictions

on activities that contribute to forest decline or degrade forest health (e.g., surface-disturbing

activities and motorized vehicle use). For example, Alternative A restricts motorized vehicle use

by limiting travel in some ACECs to designated roads, which would beneficially impact these

areas by reducing the likelihood of unplanned ignitions and unauthorized forest and woodland

product removal in these high-resource-value areas.

Special designations could adversely impact forests and woodlands and forest products with

additional restrictions on forest and woodland treatments to maintain desired vegetative or habitat

conditions or limit timber extraction availability or methods. ACECs with forest and woodland

resources (Green Mountain, South Pass, for example) could also adversely impact forest and

woodland management by limiting motorized travel to extract forest products or perform

treatments, and seasonal closures that limit the time available to actively manage a forest or

woodland landscape.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 773

4.4.1.3.3. Alternative B

4.4.1.3.3.1. Program Management

Approximately 550 acres per year of short-term disturbance over 20 years are anticipated from

forest and woodland management (mechanical treatments and forest product sale areas) under

Alternative B. All acres of this disturbance would be reclaimed.

Under Alternative B, the BLM manages forests and woodlands for watershed stability, wildlife

habitat, and forest health, with an emphasis on natural processes to achieve forest health

objectives. Alternative B permits timber harvesting that mimics natural processes and addresses

fuels loading in the WUI. Under this alternative, natural processes are emphasized and active

management is used only where natural processes are unable to accomplish forest health goals or

there is a threat to human health and safety. Alternative B allows for forest replanting after fire or

treatment, but only when necessary for stabilization or to achieve desired forest habitat conditions.

Alternative B prohibits clear-cut-type forest treatments. The restriction on the use of clear-cuts

under this alternative would beneficially impact forest woodlands management related to

short-term maintenance of soil stability from lack of ground disturbance and maintenance of

mature forest stands. The inability to use clear-cut forest management techniques could also be

an adverse impact because that method of treatment can be used to mimic natural disturbance

processes in lodgepole pine forests. The inability to break up forest fuel continuity could

increase the threat of landscape-level disturbances, which could threaten municipal watersheds

or adversely impact certain resource values.

Forest management actions under Alternative B could result in more mature stands with

less diverse age structure, and could also result in an adverse impact in relation to other

alternatives in terms of spread and extent of bark beetles and other forest and woodland pests,

which are more prevalent in mature forest and woodland stands. Again, management under

Alternative B emphasizes natural processes to achieve forest health, which raises the potential for

landscape-level disturbances in forests and woodlands on BLM-administered lands in the planning

area. This can result in a substantial adverse impact in terms of threatening human health and

safety, the long-term removal of critical wildlife habitat types, affecting municipal watersheds,

and encouraging the potential proliferation of nonnative species such as cheat grass after burns. A

beneficial impact under this alternative would be the restoration of fire-dependent ecosystems.

Alternative B does not apply an MLP to the Beaver Rim area but instead closes it (and other areas

of greater sage-grouse Core Area) to oil and gas leasing.

4.4.1.3.3.2. Resources

Under Alternative B, the BLM uses natural management to restore forest and woodland

landscapes. Active management techniques would be used for specific concerns such as wildlife

habitat and in the WUI. The use of wildland fires and prescribed burning to restore fire-adapted

ecosystems would be the greatest restoration tool under Alternative B, and could substantially

alter forest and woodland habitat in the planning area, because most forested areas are in

fire regime IV or historically experienced stand-replacement fires. Woodland resources in the

planning area are generally in fire regime III, or historically experienced mixed-severity fires. A

likely result would be larger forested tracts in early seral condition as a result of fire. There would

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities
774 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

be only minor differences between the impacts under Alternative B management the impacts

under Alternative A management.

Under Alternative B, a restriction on soil-disturbing activities on slopes over 15 percent is a major

limitation on the ability to treat wildlife habitat or areas in the WUI. Water resource management

under Alternative B would result in beneficial impacts to forest and woodland management

because it emphasizes the development of watershed management plans that would be used to

identify treatments to improve the ecological health of forest and woodland habitats. A major

adverse impact under Alternative B would be restrictions on surface-disturbing activity within

1⁄4 mile of surface water/riparian-wetland areas, which would limit the ability to manage forest

and woodland types in these areas, notably the restoration of aspen stands in and adjacent

to riparian-wetland areas.

Under Alternative B, management of the Little Red Creek Complex as non-WSA land with

wilderness characteristics would have the potential to result in adverse and beneficial impacts.

The Little Red Creek Complex is closed to motorized travel under Alternative B, which would

beneficially impact forest resources by avoiding the adverse impacts of motorized travel. By

managing the area to maintain wilderness characteristics, forest treatments that could improve

forest health could be precluded.

Fire and fuels management under Alternative B complements forest and woodland management.

The limitation on the use of heavy equipment in fire suppression would limit adverse impacts

to forest resources in terms of short- and long-term impacts from soil erosion. Wildfire

suppression tactics are more limited under Alternative B, except in the WUI or where fire

threatens infrastructure, and this would enable a natural management approach where appropriate.

Restoration of aspen with prescribed fire and wildland fire is greatest under this alternative and

would help to regenerate aspen stands that are generally in declining health. However, the

difference in impacts between Alternative B and Alternative A would be minor.

Wildlife and special status species management under Alternative B would restrict the timing

when treatments can occur in critical winter range and elk parturition areas, and prohibit forest

and woodland treatments within a 1.5-mile radius of active special status raptor nests. This would

result in more adverse impacts to forests, woodlands, and forest products than Alternative A.

However, wildlife and special status species management under Alternative B would generally

complement forest and woodland resources because protections for wildlife species and their

habitat is generally compatible with natural approaches to landscape management. Limitations on

surface disturbance under Alternative B for the protection of greater sage-grouse would not be

likely to adversely impact forest management because there is little overlap of greater sage-grouse

habitat with forest units. However, Alternative B’s closure of Core Area to oil and gas leasing

would beneficially impact the unique plant communities in the Beaver Rim area more so than

under Alternative A which protects only those communities located on slopes of 25 percent or

more steepness.

Management actions under Alternative B for cultural resources, paleontological resources, and

visual resources in relation to surface-disturbing activities would generally be beneficial to forest

management. Protection of resources would emphasize naturalness of the landscape and promote

management activities that mimic natural processes and landscape suitability. These guidelines

could limit where treatments can occur, but also help to design treatments that are more acceptable

to the public. There could be some adverse impacts in terms of restrictions on where treatments

may occur and appearance on the landscape. An example is treatments in proximity to the Warm

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 775

Springs Flume, where fire has not occurred for some time and the vegetation communities are in

Fire Regime Condition Class II and III areas, or in areas with moderate to high departure from

historic fire-return interval. In such cases, forest treatments could help to protect the cultural

resource in the event of a wildfire.

4.4.1.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B restricts resource uses such as wind-energy and mineral development in the

planning area far more than Alternative A. This would beneficially impact forest and woodland

resources by reducing short- and long-term disturbance from such activities, moderating the

amount of infrastructure and roads in these areas, which would reduce the potential for the use of

fire in management, and increasing the potential for human-caused fires.

Under Alternative B, oil and gas development would result in 10,720 acres of short-term surface

disturbance, a portion of which could adversely impact forests and woodlands by contributing to a

decline in abundance, distribution, or health of these communities. Although most of the planning

area remains open to mineral extraction under Alternative B, the RFD of minerals facilities is

the smallest under Alternative B compared to the other alternatives. Most of the impacts would

be temporary during the life of the operation, with most areas of disturbance being reclaimed

following closure of operations; however, short-term adverse impacts from minerals development

include forest health degradation and habitat fragmentation. Loss of forest and woodland areas as

a result of oil and gas and mineral development would be a long-term adverse impact; forest and

woodland areas would not recover to predisturbance conditions over the next 20 to 30 years.

Alternative B provides the greatest protection for aspen stands, although limited areas could

still experience browsing pressure from livestock. Browsing pressure reduces the ability of

these poplar species to regenerate through suckering and contributes to the eventual die-off of

entire stands. Under this alternative, livestock grazing could beneficially impact aspen stands by

implementing moderate grazing levels, which would allow aspen to avoid intensive browsing

pressure. Alternative B would treat more acres of woodlands because little or no funding would

be spent on rangeland improvement projects. Alternative B closure of the Sweetwater River

pasture in the Silver Creek Allotment to livestock grazing would beneficially impact aspen and

cottonwood woodland galleries in the riparian-wetland corridor.

Unlike Alternative A, Alternative B recreation management limits forest cutting in some RMZs.

To the extent these restrictions preserve forest health, they could result in beneficial impacts. To

the extent the prohibition limits silvicultural techniques that would improve forest health, they

could result in adverse impacts.

Alternative B limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in most of the planning

area, which would beneficially impact forest and woodland resources by reducing degradation of

those areas from increased soil erosion. In addition, prohibiting cross-country motorized travel

in areas with limited travel designations would eliminate the potential for new road and trail

proliferation. Restricting motorized vehicle use to fewer travel routes could adversely impact

forest products by limiting access for commercial and over-the-counter forest product harvest.

4.4.1.3.3.4. Special Designations

Special designations would beneficially impact forest and woodland management under

Alternative B with additional acreage protections from surface disturbance in forested areas. The

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities
776 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

opportunity to restore forested areas using natural processes and emphasize treatments suitable

for the landscape are greatest under Alternative B. Vegetative/silvicultural treatments and fuels

management, where feasible, are allowed in ACECs such as the Lander Slope, Red Canyon,

and Green Mountain, where the overlay of forest and woodland and ACEC management exist,

although clear-cuts are not allowed anywhere under Alternative B. Forest management, however,

could increase the likelihood of landscape-level fires to the extent that treatment is limited to that

which would beneficially impact ACEC values.

Adverse impacts under Alternative B would result from restrictions on the types and timing of

treatments. This would slow the restoration process in areas such as Green Mountain, where

aspen communities are in poor ecological health. Another potential adverse impact of ACECs

such as Green Mountain would be the adverse impact to aspen from wildlife grazing.

Alternative B manages the most waterways as eligible and suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS.

This management precludes surface-disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of the water course, which

would beneficially impact forest resources in that area. However, silvicultural activities are also

limited under Alternative B, with the potential for minor adverse impacts.

4.4.1.3.4. Alternative C

4.4.1.3.4.1. Program Management

Approximately 525 acres per year of short-term disturbance over 20 years are anticipated from

forest and woodland management (mechanical treatments and forest product sale areas) under

Alternative C. All acres of this disturbance would be reclaimed.

Alternative C manages forests and woodlands with the allowance to use all available tools

and silvicultural techniques to provide forest products to the public and to maintain forest

health. Clear-cuts are allowed to be any size and can be within 100 feet of riparian-wetlands.

Ground-based logging activity can be on slopes up to 45 percent or on slope in excess of 45

percent with cable or helicopter logging. As opposed to Alternative B, active management under

Alternative C would address issues such as insect and disease outbreaks across the forested

landscape.

Like Alternative A, Alternative C does not apply an MLP for the Beaver Rim area and thus has no

special management to protect unique forest and woodland areas.

4.4.1.3.4.2. Resources

Under Alternative C, although clear-cuts are allowed on slopes up to 45 percent under some

circumstances, avoidance of soil-disturbing activities on slopes over 25 percent would adversely

impact the ability to treat forest and woodland areas. This management is the same as Alternative

A’s protection of only those unique plant communities in the Beaver Rim area that are on slopes

with 25 percent or more steepness.

Full suppression of wildland fire is most likely under Alternative C, and use of heavy equipment

in fire suppression activities is authorized. Impacts to forest resources would be similar to those

under Alternative A. This could be beneficial to forest resources by reducing the potential loss of

timber resources and forest habitat from wildfire. In the short term, this would result in beneficial

impacts to forested areas by limiting the short-term adverse impacts of high-severity fire on these

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 777

areas. Adverse impacts from this suppression approach would be continued loss of aspen due to

lack of disturbance from fire and long-term fuels build up, which could lead to landscape-level

fire during the planning period as a result of years of full suppression tactics. The loss of soil

seed bank and loss of A-horizon soils could adversely impact reestablishment of forests and

woodlands after high-severity fires.

A beneficial impact under Alternative C would be the lessening of restrictions on

surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of riparian-wetlands. This could lessen restrictions

on forest management activities in riparian-wetland corridors, where greater restrictions could

prevent such activities. Active management in riparian-wetland areas complements forest and

woodland management under Alternative C.

Forest management actions under Alternative C could result in less-dense stands with more

diverse age structure, and therefore would result in the most beneficial impacts by slowing the

spread of bark beetles compared to alternatives A and B. Precommercial thinning could also have

a beneficial impact on forests and woodlands, if performed at the appropriate intensity, to reduce

fuels and the chance of landscape-level disturbances.

Management actions under Alternative C designed to protect wildlife and special status species

habitat from the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities would

be similar to those under Alternative A. Adverse impacts to forest and woodland and forest

product management would result from limits on access to forest areas due to seasonal closures

and distance limitations around active raptor nests, but these impacts would be expected to be

minor and not preclude treatment. Beneficial impacts would result from maintenance of the road

network inside and outside big game critical winter range and parturition areas. This would allow

access to forested areas and facilitate treatments and forest product sales.

Clear-cuts are allowed under Alternative C, within some parameters, which would result in

greater forest product availability than Alternative B, but similar to Alternative A. The potential

adverse impacts to microclimates or regeneration time and soil erosion would be greater than

under Alternative B, but similar to Alternative A.

Although management under Alternative C for cultural, paleontological, and visual resources

would limit surface-disturbing activities and treatment techniques to maintain viewsheds,

prescriptions under Alternative C are generally the least restrictive of all the alternatives and

allow for the greatest flexibility in forest and woodland management. Under this alternative,

there would be some adverse impacts from cultural, paleontological, and visual resources

management, with beneficial impacts from VRM in terms of helping to design the treatments

to be most acceptable to the public.

4.4.1.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative C, most of the planning area is open to oil and gas and other minerals

development, and the extent of the RFD of minerals facilities is the greatest under this alternative.

A minor portion of this potential development could adversely impact forests and woodlands by

contributing to a decline in abundance, distribution, or health of forests and woodlands. The

extent of some of the impacts would be temporary during the life of the operation, with most

areas of disturbance being reclaimed following closure of operations; however, short-term

adverse impacts from oil and gas and mineral development include forest health degradation and

habitat fragmentation. Loss of forest and woodland areas as a result of oil and gas and mineral

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities
778 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

development would be a long-term adverse impact because forest and woodland areas would not

recover to predisturbance conditions over the next 20 to 30 years.

Most of the planning area is open to wind-energy development under Alternative C. Wind-energy

development could adversely impact forest and woodland resources by removal and fragmentation

of these resources within a development site and supporting infrastructure. Wind-energy

development in forest and woodland habitat would result in both short-term and long-term

adverse impacts.

Livestock grazing under Alternative C would result in a continued adverse impact to aspen stands

and, to a lesser degree, cottonwood galleries, due to browsing pressure on these woodlands.

Browsing pressure reduces the ability of these poplar species to regenerate through suckering,

and contributes to the eventual die off of entire stands. Adverse impacts to forest resources

from livestock grazing would be minor compared to Alternative A and moderate compared to

Alternative B, depending on grazing strategies implemented in forest resources. Like Alternative

A, Alternative C does not close the Sweetwater Canyon pasture to livestock grazing, so adverse

impacts to woodland vegetation in the canyon would be the same.

Alternative C permits the use of motorized vehicles on existing roads and trails in most of the

planning area. The level of public access granted for motorized travel could adversely impact

forests, woodlands, and forest products by increasing the potential for unplanned ignitions,

unauthorized woodcutting, and INNS spread. However, allowing motorized vehicle use on

existing roads and trails would also beneficially impact forest products by allowing access for

commercial and over-the-counter forest product harvest. Allowing cross-country motorized travel

in areas with limited travel designations would result in road and trail proliferation that would

increase erosion, degrade vegetation, and increase the potential for unplanned ignitions, which

would adversely impact forests, woodlands, and forest products.

4.4.1.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not designate any ACECs and manages Congressionally Designated Trails

with a 1⁄4-mile buffer. Areas specially designated under alternatives A and B are managed under

Alternative C with standard stipulations. Accordingly, to the extent that special designations

could beneficially impact forests and woodlands by placing additional restrictions on activities

that contribute to forest decline or degrade forest health (e.g., surface-disturbing activities and

motorized vehicle use), Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts than alternatives A

and B. To the extent that management of special designations limits forestry activity, Alternative

C would result in beneficial impacts because it includes no such special management.

Under Alternative C, there would be some adverse impacts to forest resources from applying

standard stipulations. For example, no part of Green Mountain is designated an ACEC, but

seasonal restrictions are still applied. Seasonal restrictions would result in adverse impacts from

restricting access to forest areas for management if the season in which to undertake forest

management is too restricted to be able to complete needed work.

Under this alternative, the lack of management protections associated with special designations

could also adversely impact forest and woodland resources and lead to increased adverse

disturbances from recreational use and resource development in these habitat types and cause

degradation of forest and woodland resources.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 779

4.4.1.3.5. Alternative D

4.4.1.3.5.1. Program Management

Approximately 600 acres per year of short-term disturbance over 20 years are anticipated from

forest and woodland management (mechanical treatments and forest product sale areas) under

Alternative D. All acres of this disturbance would be reclaimed within a short time. These

approximate annual acres treated over 20 years are greater than under alternatives A and B, but

less than anticipated under Alternative C. Required Design Features for the benefit of greater

sage-grouse habitat would adversely impact access to forests, but only to a moderate degree

because the 1 percent of the planning area that is not greater sage-grouse habitat is the location of

most of the forested vegetation. To the extent that greater sage-grouse and mule deer management

treat juniper encroachment, woodland health, including aspen, would benefit.

Alternative D manages forests and woodlands using all available tools and silvicultural techniques

to provide forest products to the public and to maintain forest health. Clear-cuts are allowed to be

any size and in any location, depending on resource conflicts. This management would result

in more beneficial impacts to forest and woodlands management; it does not impose artificial

limits on forest management but acknowledges the potential for resource conflicts such as the

potentially adverse impact of clear-cuts to soil and riparian-wetland areas.

Alternative D applies an MLP for the Beaver Rim area which would provide beneficial impacts

to forests and woodlands.

4.4.1.3.5.2. Resources

Under Alternative D, slope avoidance would result in slightly more adverse impacts to the ability

to treat forest and woodland areas than under Alternative A or Alternative C, but less than under

Alternative B.

Full suppression of wildland fire is more likely under Alternative D than Alternative B, and

more similar to alternatives A and C for the benefit of greater sage-grouse. The use of heavy

equipment in fire suppression activities is authorized after considering impacts to other resources.

Beneficial impacts to forest resources would be similar to those under alternatives A and C by

reducing the potential loss of timber resources and forest habitat from wildfire. In the short

term this would have a beneficial impact on forested areas by limiting the short-term adverse

impacts from high-severity fire in these areas. Adverse impacts from this suppression approach

would continued loss of aspen due to lack of disturbance from fire and long-term fuels build up,

which could lead to landscape-level fire during the planning period as a result of years of full

suppression tactics. The loss of soil seed bank and loss of A-horizon soils could adversely impact

reestablishment of forests and woodlands after high-severity fires. The differences in impacts

among the alternatives with regard to fire suppression activities would be very minor.

Alternative D, like Alternative A, restricts surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of

riparian-wetlands. This would result in more adverse impacts to forest and woodlands

management than Alternative C, which could allow logging in riparian-wetland corridors where

greater restrictions would prohibit such activities. Alternatives A and D would result in fewer

adverse impacts than Alternative B.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities
780 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Forest management actions under Alternative D are comparable to alternatives A and C in

allowing the use of silvicultural techniques to address beetle outbreaks in manageable areas

and create diverse age structure by allowing precommercial thinning and other forest treatment

methods. Under Alternative D, funding to implement effective landscape-level treatments to

address loss of dominant forest and woodland species such as lodgepole pine and limber pine

could continue to be limited and substantially limit the beneficial impact of such treatments.

However, aspen would benefit from the emphasis on addressing juniper encroachment rather

than the use of prescribed fire where it could harm greater sage-grouse habitat. Management

actions under Alternative D designed to protect wildlife and special status species habitat from

the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities would be similar to

those under Alternative B, but to a lesser extent. Adverse impacts to forest and woodland and

forest product management would be limits on access to forest areas due to distance limitations

around active raptor nests. Seasonal closures due to wildlife and travel management concerns

could also adversely impact forest management in areas that have inclement weather by limiting

the season of treatment to too short a time before inclement weather makes access impossible.

Beneficial impacts would be maintenance of road networks inside and outside big game critical

winter range and parturition areas. This would allow access to forested areas and facilitate

treatments and forest product sales.

Clear-cuts are allowed under Alternative D, with consideration of other resources, which would

provide greater forest product availability than Alternative B, but similar to alternatives A and C,

and potentially more beneficial impact because Alternative D does not impose artificial constraints

such as slope or size. Potential adverse impacts to microclimates or regeneration time and soil

erosion would be greater than under Alternative B, but similar to alternatives A and C.

Management of the Little Red Creek Complex for wilderness characteristics would result in

generally the same impacts under Alternative D as Alternative B – in some ways beneficial

and in some ways adverse.

Management under Alternative D for cultural, paleontological, and visual resources limits

ground-disturbing activities and treatment techniques to maintain viewsheds. This management

is the second most restrictive of all the alternatives and allows the least flexibility in forest and

woodland management. Under this alternative, there would be some adverse impacts from

cultural, paleontological, and visual resources management, although fewer impacts than

under Alternative B. Forest treatments can be designed to reduce contrast by feathering and

avoiding straight lines, which would limit adverse impacts to forest, and particularly woodlands,

management (where feathering has been very effective).

4.4.1.3.5.3. Resource Uses

After Alternative B, Alternative D management of oil and gas and other minerals development

would result in the next most beneficial impacts to forest and woodlands management by closing

the most areas to leasing (and withdrawals from locatable minerals) and managing the most

areas as NSO. In the Dubois and South Pass Primary Forest Resource areas, this management

would be substantially more beneficial than that under alternatives A and C, and comparable to

Alternative B because of locatable mineral withdrawals. Although the Green Mountain ACEC is

open to mineral location under Alternative D, a Plan of Operations is required for disturbances

under 5 acres, which would assist the BLM in preventing undue or unnecessary degradation to

forest resources (see Special Designations). Alternative D has almost as beneficial impacts to

the forest resources in the proposed expanded ACEC as Alternative B because oil and gas leases

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 781

in the expanded Green Mountain ACEC would be NSO. Required Design Features for mineral

development under Alternative D would have beneficial impacts in the limited forested areas in

which they would be utilized.

Alternative D’s MLP for the Beaver Rim area would have a beneficial impact on the area’s unique

plant communities that is similar to Alternative B’s protections by making oil and gas in those

areas subject to an NSO stipulation. This is more beneficial than under alternatives A and C where

only the standard steepness stipulation protects the plant communities.

Except for Alternative B, Alternative D allows the least wind-energy development, followed by

alternatives A and C, and closes most forested areas to wind-energy development. Where allowed,

wind-energy development could adversely impact forest and woodland resources by removal

and fragmentation of these resources within a development site and supporting infrastructure.

Alternative D wind-energy development in forest and woodland habitat would result in short- and

long-term adverse impacts. However, wind energy closures for the benefit of other resources such

as on Green and Crooks Mountain and in the South Pass and Dubois areas, limit the extent of

this adverse impact.

Livestock grazing under Alternative D would result in a continued adverse impact to aspen stands

and, to a lesser degree, cottonwood galleries, due to browsing pressure on these woodlands, but

the impact would be less than under Alternative C because livestock grazing intensity is likely

to be less. Browsing pressure reduces the ability of these poplar species to regenerate through

suckering and contributes to the eventual die-off of entire stands. In terms of areas closed

to livestock grazing, Alternative D closes slightly more acres to livestock grazing, but none

containing aspen or cottonwood galleries; therefore, this impact would be the same as under

Alternative A and less beneficial than under Alternative B, which includes management that

would beneficially impact the woodlands in the Sweetwater Canyon pasture. Alternative C has

more potential for adverse impacts to woodlands because of the potential for adverse impacts

from intensive grazing strategies. These would be similar to the adverse impacts described for

grassland and shrubland communities.

Alternative D closes almost the same number of acres to motorized vehicle use as Alternative

B, including some in Primary Forest Management Areas, and manages to reduce duplicative

roads. The level of public access granted for motorized travel could adversely impact forests,

woodlands, and forest products by increasing the potential for unplanned ignitions, unauthorized

woodcutting, and invasive species spread. However, allowing motorized vehicle use on existing

roads and trails could also beneficially impact forest products by allowing access for commercial

and over-the-counter forest product harvest.

4.4.1.3.5.4. Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative D would be beneficial impacts to forests and woodlands if

they place additional restrictions on activities that contribute to forest decline or degrade forest

health (e.g., surface-disturbing activities and motorized vehicle use). Alternative D manages

51,196 acres of forest and woodlands (Primary Forest Resource Areas) in the Lander Slope, Red

Canyon, Whiskey Mountain, Beaver Rim, East Fork and Green Mountain areas as ACECs and

other areas with forest and woodland ecological sites as special management areas. Limits on

surface disturbance and other management in these areas would be a beneficial impact by reducing

the likelihood of unplanned ignitions and unauthorized forest and woodland product removal in

these high resource value areas. In addition, the areas outside of ACECs that are withdrawn from

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities
782 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

locatable mineral entry, although less than under Alternative B, would limit adverse impacts

to forests and woodlands from mining. These areas include the forested areas in the Lander

Slope, Red Canyon, Beaver Rim, Whiskey Mountain, East Fork, and South Pass areas. In the

ACECs that are not withdrawn, such as the Green Mountain ACEC, the designation requires a

Plan of Operations for exploration-size disturbances, which gives the BLM an opportunity to

ensure that no undue or unnecessary degradation would result. While a Plan of Amendment

would not preclude mining development, it could avoid exploratory activities that would result in

long-term adverse impacts to forest and woodlands management. Potential adverse impacts under

Alternative D would be restrictions on forest and woodland treatments in maintenance of special

designation objectives and restrictions on season when treatments may be implemented.

Management of Congressionally Designated Trails under Alternative D in the NTMC, would

result in more beneficial impacts to forest and woodlands management than under any alternative

other than Alternative B by limiting the amount of surface disturbance and applying stricter

VRM in areas within view of the trails. This could be an adverse impact to forest and woodland

management by restricting treatment methods and project design. However, due to the limited

overlap of forest resources with the trails management area, this adverse impact could be minor

and would likely not preclude treatments that could meet VRM objectives for the area.

Under Alternative D, somewhat fewer waterways are managed as eligible and suitable for

inclusion in the NWSRS than under Alternative B, so there would be fewer beneficial impacts,

but most of the suitable segments in forested areas are protected, so the difference is relatively

small. Alternative D management would result in far fewer adverse impacts than Alternative C,

and somewhat fewer adverse impacts than Alternative A.

Alternative D’s management of the parturition areas that are part of the expanded ACEC in

Alternative B is open to oil and gas leasing but subject to an NSO. This would beneficially

impact forest resources that would otherwise be adversely impacted through oil and gas surface

disturbance. This management would avoid most of the adverse impacts identified under

alternatives A and C but would not achieve the beneficial impacts from better management using

oil and gas created roads. It is unlikely that road development for forest management would not

occur on its own to reach moderate- to low-value timber stands.

4.4.2. Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities

Most biological resources in the planning area are dependent on the quality and quantity of

vegetation. This section describes potential impacts to grassland and shrubland communities from

resource management actions and resource use programs.

Adverse impacts to grassland and shrubland communities result from surface-disturbing activities

and other activities that cause vegetation to be removed or that mechanically impact plants.

Livestock grazing, wildlife use, wildfire, and vegetative treatments result in direct adverse impacts

to these plant communities. Impacts to grassland and shrubland communities result from activities

that alter the health of the communities. Erosion and a change in hydrology, or encroachment

of invasive species, are indirect impacts. Changes beneficially impact some vegetation species

and adversely impact others. Plant succession is the product of opening and filling niches on the

landscape. Beneficial impacts to grasslands and shrubland communities are measured against

objectives for the ecological site. It is desirable that grassland and shrubland communities are

maintained with a mix of species composition, cover, and age classes.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 783

Beneficial changes could be a reduction in the spread of invasive species or the implementation of

vegetative treatments that improve these communities. Adverse changes would include shifts

to less desirable native species or increases in bare ground. The primary objective in sagebrush

grassland vegetation communities is a vigorous stand of sagebrush with an understory containing

cool-season bunchgrasses such as needle and thread, Indian ricegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass,

green needlegrass, and bottlebrush squirreltail. These large cool-season bunchgrasses are replaced

by smaller, more grazing-resistant species such as threadleaf sedge, Sandberg bluegrass, and

rhizomatous wheatgrasses when subjected to heavy or repeated use during the critical growing

season.

FLPMA and the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands direct the BLM to manage

vegetation resources toward the maintenance and/or restoration of the physical function and

biological health of these communities. The objectives are to maintain and improve the condition

and trend of these plant communities within their respective ecological site. This would provide

benefits to the many consumptive and non-consumptive uses within these sites. Examples include

beneficial impacts to livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, recreation, and soil and water.

4.4.2.1. Summary of Impacts

Adverse impacts to grassland and shrubland communities accrue in two fundamental ways.

Vegetation can be lost, or plant communities composition can shift. All alternatives entail

surface-disturbing activities that remove vegetation. Alternative C entails the most surface

disturbance, followed by alternatives A, D and B. All alternatives provide for reclamation

activities which are projected to be successful, except in isolated circumstances. However,

while reclamation activities normally replace vegetation cover, reclaimed areas are commonly

dominated by herbaceous plant communities, especially in the near and mid-term. Consequently

shrub communities, notably sagebrush, would decline at volumes commensurate with the amount

of surface-disturbing activity each alternative allows. In the long term shrubs will eventually

colonize these sites.

Herbivory by livestock, wildlife and wild horses can change the vegetation community

composition to species that are more adapted to utilization pressure. Communities in the planning

area can remain stable for extended periods, but can also undergo transition to when conditions

alter the niches occupied by the vegetation. The primary issue relates to vegetation community

transition when grazing or browsing is heavy, or occurs repeatedly during rapid growth periods.

Generally, plants are more vulnerable to damage from herbivory during this period. It is not

anticipated that any of the alternatives will materially affect the way wildlife and wild horses

utilize the range. Consequently no large scale changes in vegetation are expected to occur from

these uses. All alternatives address the need to protect the vegetation resource from issues

associated with livestock grazing. Alternative B provides for plant health primarily by limiting the

levels of use. Alternative C relies on strategies that control the timing of grazing use. Alternative

D provides a hybrid of the approaches from alternatives B and C. Alternative A, allows for any

strategy, but provides little direction regarding preferred approaches. All alternatives offer the

potential to promote healthy plant communities, but the more aggressive strategies associated

with Alternative C offer the most risk of resource damage.

Some disturbances and vegetation treatments can alter niches in a manner that promotes

vegetation health and moves plant succession toward desired plant communities. All alternatives

provide the opportunity for treatments that augment natural disturbance, such as drought and

insect infestations, that can influence plant succession.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities
784 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Successful reclamation and grazing management provides a deterrent to INNS because healthy

plant communities successfully compete with INNS for space in the landscape. This is the most

important component of a comprehensive INNS strategy, and all alternatives provide for this

need. However the more aggressive nature of Alternative C again provides the most risk. In some

situations INNS invade native range even though the native plant community is healthy. In

this situation, physical treatment of infestations is required, and all alternatives provide for this

activity. Control of INNS is not assured under any alternative.

Wind-energy development disturbs large areas of surface, and much of the disturbance would be

permanent. Therefore, the more acres open to wind-energy development and related transmission

lines, and the more area open to all ROWs, the more adverse the impacts to vegetation.

4.4.2.2. Methods and Assumptions

The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands are designed to maintain or improve rangeland

health and are applied under all alternatives. Theoretically, all lands in the planning area are

required to meet the Standards for Healthy Rangelands. However, cause-and-effect relationships

associated with vegetation are complex. It is much easier to identify areas not meeting the

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands than to identify causal factors and site-specific

solutions, which are often the subject of dispute. Consequently, assessments of rangeland health

require detailed analysis, and decisions often require monitoring data that is time consuming and

expensive to obtain. In many cases, implementation of BMPs that are generally successful would

leave some problem areas unaddressed. Consequently, achieving the Wyoming Standards for

Healthy Rangelands is an ongoing process. The BLM would purse rangeland health objectives

throughout the planning period under all alternatives.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Energy development is identified as the primary source of surface disturbance in the planning

area. This includes not only the development at the well pad, but in the network of roads,

powerlines, and pipelines to support development. New technologies such as enhanced

recovery increase the need for surface disturbance. The greater the energy development likely

under an alternative, the greater the adverse impacts to vegetation.

● Grazing and browsing, whether by livestock or wildlife, must be properly managed to

maintain the health of grassland and shrubland communities and to improve the communities’

capacity to sequester carbon. Improper livestock grazing management can decrease plant

vigor and ground cover, lead to increased erosion, degrade soil nutrients and water retention,

and adversely impact rangeland health. As rangeland health degrades, its ability to hold

carbon is reduced.

● As rangelands are evaluated through assessments, guidelines are implemented to improve

undesirable conditions regardless of allotment category. Over time, implementing guidelines

is expected to continue to improve and maintain the health of these communities.

● Fire plays an intricate role in these communities, particularly shrubland communities.

Prescribed fire is a tool used to manage vegetative communities and can result in short-term

adverse impacts, but long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats.

● Both wildland and prescribed fire result in adverse and beneficial impacts to grassland and

shrubland plant communities. In the short term, fires result in the direct loss of vegetation,

habitat, and forage, an increase in soil erosion, and reduced water penetration, and create

a seedbed for invasive species. However, the long-term result can be beneficial. Fire has

played a historic role on the landscape. On a landscape level, fire can rejuvenate plants,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 785

increase density and cover of vegetation, increase diversity, change plant composition to more

desirable states, and enhance the overall health of vegetative resources. In shrublands, fire

can have the long-term impact of reducing shrubs from the population for up to 30 years.

This might or might not be beneficial, depending on the desired use of the area, which is

determined by other management decisions such as in the livestock grazing or special status

species programs. Limiting the effects or spread of fire prevents direct loss of vegetation that

can be used by livestock, wild horses, and wildlife. Extinguishing fires immediately also

reduces the invasion of invasive species by not offering a seedbed to easily germinate in

without competition. Given fire’s historic role on the landscape, the lack of fire plays a direct

role in the health of grassland and shrubland communities. The alternatives vary in the extent

to which wildland fire would be suppressed. It is not possible to quantify these impacts.

● Increased prescribed fire would result in a short-term adverse impact to vegetation, but a

long-term beneficial impact. The duration of the impact (both adverse and beneficial) would

depend on the type of vegetation community. Beneficial impacts in shrubland communities

might not be observed during the planning period. Thus, the extent to which prescribed fire is

used, which varies by alternative, determines the degree of adverse and beneficial impacts.

● Surface disturbance adversely impacts grassland and shrubland communities by contributing

to a decline in abundance, distribution, or health of the vegetation. In addition, surface

disturbance contributes to fugitive dust. Dust from increased road construction, well pads, and

ROWs that accumulates on the surface of plant leaves would adversely impact the plants.

Photosynthesis and the plant’s ability to function are greatly reduced in areas adjacent to

these projects. As acres of disturbance increase, the chances of successful reclamation in

these areas decreases. Thus, the surface disturbance the more adverse impacts to grassland

and shrubland communities.

● Adverse impacts to vegetative communities from INNS management would relate directly

to the amount of surface disturbance. The more authorized surface disturbance, the more

adverse impacts to vegetative communities.

● Short-term impacts to plant communities result from activities that contribute to the decline

in the distribution or abundance of the plant communities within 5 years of the activity.

Short-term impacts to vegetation can also depend on the time it takes for a disturbed area to

become revegetated, generally 1 to 5 years.

● Long-term impacts are those that require more than 5 years to manifest or that persist for

more than 5 years. Some existing plant communities likely would not be reestablished to

predisturbance structure and density for more than 20 years, regardless of the cause of the

disturbance.

● Plant communities are managed for plant diversity and viability, and to provide the forage,

cover, and habitat needs of livestock, wild horses, and wildlife.

4.4.2.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.4.2.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Potential impacts to grassland and shrubland plant communities would be similar under

all alternatives, but the extent and intensity of impacts would vary by alternative. Impacts

to grassland and shrubland communities from livestock and wildlife grazing and browsing,

recreation use, fuels management, prescribed fire and wildfire, and proactive management actions

are described under the each alternative. The following paragraphs described potential impacts

common to all alternatives.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities
786 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Vegetation and soils have a symbiotic relationship: any adverse impacts to the soil resource can

directly impact the health and functionality of the vegetation. Impacts from water and wind

erosion and other forms of surface disturbance can reduce the soil’s capability to provide an

environment that supports vegetation. A healthy soil resource will promote healthy vegetative

attributes.

Activities that disturb the surface occur under all alternatives. Under all alternatives, programs

apply BMPs for surface-disturbing activities. These disturbances can impact grasslands and

shrublands by contributing to the transport of invasive species along the network of roads and

watersheds. Plant communities can be degraded, lost, and fragmented by such activities as fire

and fuels management, livestock, wild horse, and wildlife herbivory, recreation use, road and

ROW construction, and minerals development.

Livestock, wild horse, and wildlife herbivory produces both adverse and beneficial impacts to

grasslands and shrublands, depending on the intensity, timing and season of use, condition of

the range, and precipitation patterns. Herbivory can result in direct mortality to native plants of

grasslands and shrublands through trampling and direct consumption of the plants. There could be

indirect impacts due to soil compaction and erosion, and changes in plant community composition

that cause plant communities to change to different transitional states.

Sagebrush communities in the planning area contain a shrub and herbaceous component. Impacts

associated with grazing refer to herbivory on the herbaceous component, whereas browsing refers

to herbivory on the shrub component. Cattle, wild horses, elk, and bighorn sheep are primarily

grazers. Pronghorn and mule deer are grazers in some seasons, especially spring, and browsers in

others, especially winter. Moose utilize sagebrush and grassland habitat periodically but not in

sufficient numbers to be an important driver affecting plant succession.

Livestock grazing is permitted on more acreage in the planning area than any other resource use

with the potential to impact grasslands and shrublands. Grasslands and shrublands evolved

with grazing, but in historic distributions and uses different than today’s commercial grazing

operations. Historically, grazing has resulted in adverse impacts. Over the last 50 years, rangeland

conditions in the planning area have improved with the application of better grazing management

practices. With proper grazing management, many plant species will have increased plant vigor or

increased seed production – but improperly managed grazing could result in reduced root growth,

which is where long-term carbon sequestration can be maximized.

However, areas where rangeland health is most likely to experience adverse impacts are

areas where livestock congregate. These include areas with water, shade, aspect, and/or more

palatable forage. Rangeland improvement projects can adversely impact grasslands and

shrublands by concentrating livestock along fence lines, water developments, and salt and mineral

supplementation. Fencing to protect riparian-wetland areas can disperse livestock to upland range

that has historically not been heavily grazed, with the potential for adverse impacts to grasslands

and shrubland communities. The numbers of range improvement projects vary by alternative;

therefore, potential adverse and beneficial impacts to grassland shrubland communities from

range improvement projects vary by alternative.

Rangeland management often is geared toward improving the overall distribution of livestock

within an allotment. This is accomplished through implementing BMPs, such as managing

utilization levels and the timing of utilization. In the absence of BMPs, livestock use increases

bare ground and promotes shifts in plant communities that are adverse. Grazing-resistant species

such as blue grama, threadleaf sedge, and western wheatgrass tend to reproduce through rhizomes

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 787

rather than seeds, and exhibit low profiles that limit the level of use by livestock, which produces

long-term adverse impacts to the site.

Improper livestock grazing management can transport and cause the propagation of INNS.

Through proper and sound grazing management, livestock grazing can beneficially impact

rangeland health by improving plant vigor, increasing vegetative cover, reducing competition

among plant communities, and reducing INNS infestations.

One tool used to decrease the spread of invasive species in an area is to have livestock graze an

invasive species at a crucial point in its life-cycle. For example, sheep can graze leafy spurge

before seed distribution and cattle can graze areas infested with the annual grass cheatgrass

in early spring before boot formation, thereby limiting seed production. However, the use of

livestock for this purpose is expensive and requires a long-term commitment. It also has the

potential to adversely impact vegetative resources by reducing ground cover and making the

area vulnerable to new INNS infestation. In the planning area, only oil and gas operators have

implemented this potentially beneficial practice on state and private lands; there has been no

application of this practice on public lands.

Long-term over utilization or repeated grazing in the critical growing season reduces abundance

of certain native plants, allows less desirable forage species to increase, and allows INNS to enter

and, in some cases, dominate communities. An indirect impact of improper livestock grazing

management is a decrease in ground cover, which results in an increase in runoff and soil erosion,

which can impact the health of the grassland and shrubland plant community. These adverse

impacts can be both short and long term and can move a plant community to a new ecological

state that cannot be reversed.

The presence of riparian-wetlands can adversely impact grassland and shrublands because

they attract high levels of grazing use. Sagebrush grasslands in the immediate vicinity of

riparian-wetlands tend to be heavily used. Trampling of, use of, and mechanical damage to

plant species impact grasslands and shrublands.

Wildlife grazing and browsing can result in both adverse and beneficial impacts to the health

and productivity of grassland and shrubland communities. During severe winters, wildlife can

congregate on winter ranges and over use grasses and shrubs. This over use typically occurs after

livestock have grazed the area during their grazing season. In addition to areas of congregation,

wildlife movement can transport and propagate invasive seeds and plant parts, thereby expanding

infestations. Impacts to vegetation by these means of transport have contributed to the

challenge of managing rangeland health and productivity in the planning area. Impacts from

wildlife exceeding objective levels can result in an adverse impact to grassland and shrubland

communities in terms of use.

Wild-horse numbers are managed according to the established appropriate management level for a

herd area. When horse populations increase, plants can be over used, which adversely impacts the

vegetative health of the plant community. Unregulated wild-horse numbers can adversely impact

plant vigor and health by year-round consumption in grassland and shrubland communities. A

beneficial impact from wild-horse grazing is that within proper appropriate management level

levels, wild horses tend to use higher-elevation areas and graze farther from water. This type of

grazing achieves reduced pressure on grasslands and shrublands.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities
788 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Continued proper management of programs that impact grassland and shrubland communities

would maintain the species attributes using ecologically sustainable practices that would enhance

or maintain these communities in accordance with each site’s ecological site description.

ROW corridors adversely impact grasslands and shrublands. These corridors are typically a linear

disturbance that bisects an area. Vegetation is removed for project installation. This immediate

loss of plants is a short-term adverse impact. However, the long-term adverse impact of linear

disturbances is that these areas are difficult to reclaim. The linear nature of the disturbance does

not readily allow for fencing and protection of the site.

Under all alternatives, no surface disturbances, permanent new development, or ROWs are

allowed in WSAs. Therefore, impacts to grasslands in WSAs do not vary by alternative and

are not be further analyzed.

All alternatives limit motorized vehicle use to existing and/or designated roads and trails with

seasonal travel limitations in certain areas; the locations vary by alternative. Adopted for the

benefit of wildlife, these limitations also beneficially impact plant communities because they limit

the likelihood of people driving cross-country because of weather and/or road condition. Where

present, seasonal limitations beneficially impact grassland and shrubland communities.

Alternatives B and D have protective management for the unique plant communities in the Beaver

Rim area while alternatives A and C have only the standard steepness slope limitations, which is

less beneficial. However, the unique plant communities are primarily forest and woodland types

which are analyzed in that section. The Beaver Rim area management has such slight differences

in impacts that no additional analysis is required.

4.4.2.3.2. Alternative A

4.4.2.3.2.1. Program Management

Under Alternative A, there are no requirements for the use of weed-free seed and no restrictions

on the use of mulch and hay that could introduce invasive species. Alternative A manages

grasslands and shrublands to the ecological site and the transitional state they are in. Beneficial

impacts to grassland and shrubland health occur under Alternative A to varying degrees through

managing for objectives based on ecological site descriptions. Vegetative treatments such as

prescribed fire and mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments are used to improve plant

community health, diversity, cover, and other attributes to meet resource objectives.

4.4.2.3.2.2. Resources

Alternative A management of air resources places moderate limitations on surface disturbance;

therefore, it would neither beneficially nor adversely impact grasslands and shrubland plants.

Alternative A management of soil and water resources would beneficially impact grassland and

shrubland plants by limiting surface disturbance. Lands with wilderness characteristics are not

specially managed under Alternative A, so there are no limits on surface disturbance. In general,

wildfires are suppressed, although on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the beneficial and adverse

impacts from fire management are site-specific.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 789

The BLM currently manages activities to reduce the invasion of INNS. Under Alternative A,

appropriate methods, herbicide types, and applications are used in grasslands and shrublands to

control INNS, with beneficial impacts to vegetation.

Alternative A places moderate limitations on surface disturbance for the benefit of wildlife.

This alternative closes 1⁄4 mile around greater sage-grouse leks to surface disturbance. This

would beneficially impact grasslands and shrubland resources, except to the extent that it would

preclude vegetation treatment that would otherwise benefit the vegetative community, especially

shrublands.

In areas protected for cultural, paleontological, and visual resources, grassland and shrubland

plants tend to achieve full growth and maximize their vigor. This allows plants to always

remain in a healthy state in their area of protection. However, the acreage of these sites is small

and mostly less than 100 acres (exclusive of VRM management). The exception is the Warm

Springs Canyon Flume, which under this alternative is open to grazing and construction of range

improvement projects.

Under Alternative A, VRM that limits surface disturbance would beneficially impact grassland

and shrubland communities.

4.4.2.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Wind-energy development, ROWs, and locatable, leasable, and mineral materials management

reduce the acreage of available grasslands and shrublands from both short- and long-term surface

disturbance. In the short term as these areas are developed, acres would be removed from the

plant community. It is estimated that 52,591 acres would be developed under Alternative A,

including ROWs corridors and pads for energy development activities. Furthermore, gravel or

dirt roads add to dust particulates that settle on adjacent vegetation in proximity to development

areas, resulting in adverse impacts. ROWs corridors remove vegetation and can be difficult to

reclaim. Subsequent livestock use can preclude successful reclamation even if initial procedures

were well implemented. It is estimated that approximately 9,000 acres of proposed pipelines and

utility lines would be installed over the next 20 years under Alternative A.

Alternative A authorizes wind-energy development on 283,647 acres with commercial potential

for wind energy, and opens 2,188,294 acres for ROWs.

Alternative A has only one designated corridor. To the extent that a designated corridor serves

to group disturbances, it can have a beneficial impact to vegetation by limiting disturbance. In

addition, grouping disturbances limits the areas of travel which could reduce the spread of INNS,

which secondarily benefits vegetation.

Under Alternative A, trails and travel management limits motorized travel to existing roads

and trails except in some ACECs, where travel is limited to designated roads. Routes and

travel can be managed, but unless enforced, there could be long-term adverse impacts to how

the vegetation restores itself on the landscape. Travel management has had little on-the-ground

implementation; therefore, management limited to designated roads has produced few beneficial

impacts to grasslands and shrublands.

Under Alternative A, almost the entire planning area currently is available for livestock grazing.

Grazing system and range improvements are implemented to achieve management objectives for

livestock and serve as a primary means of improving range conditions on category I allotments

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities
790 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and maintaining category M and C grazing allotments. The trend of continued slow improvement

in rangeland productivity in the planning area is expected to continue under Alternative A.

Short- and long-term adverse impacts to grassland and shrubland communities are anticipated

under Alternative A based on continued development of rangeland improvement projects would

continue, but riparian-wetland conditions should improve.

There is no recreation management under Alternative A that would beneficially impact grassland

and shrubland communities. It is likely that long-term adverse impacts to vegetation would

continue as more roads and impacts associated with continued recreational use would continue to

grow.

4.4.2.3.2.4. Special Designations

Alternative A designates the same number of ACECs with the same acreage as the 1987 RMP;

therefore, there would be continued beneficial impacts to grassland and shrubland communities in

the existing ACECs. Under Alternative A, the BLM would apply interim management to the nine

waterways eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS to protect their free-flowing characteristics which

would provide a beneficial impact to grassland and shrubland communities near these waterways.

Currently, for Congressionally Designated Trails under Alternative A, surface disturbance such

as ROW crossings are allowed only where the trail ruts have been modified by modern uses;

otherwise, no new disturbances are allowed unless established outside the minimum distance

identified under Alternative A for historic trails actions. This management is beneficial to the

vegetation protected from disturbance.

4.4.2.3.3. Alternative B

4.4.2.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B manages grasslands and shrublands to achieve or make progress toward achieving

biological diversity in the plant communities. Alternative B manages and implements soil and

vegetative treatments to restore the diversity of grassland and shrubland ecological sites and

their transitional states to beneficially impact all resources. This would result in more beneficial

impact to vegetative resources than Alternative A, because range improvement projects are

focused on rangeland health rather than cattle distribution or increasing animal unit months

(AUMs). Alternative B emphasizes wildlife, recreation, and aesthetics, with resulting adverse

impacts to resource uses.

4.4.2.3.3.2. Resources

Impacts to soils under Alternative B would be similar to those under Alternative A, except that

mineral and realty actions on slopes more than 15 percent, rather than 25 percent, would be

managed with Category 6 restrictions. This would reduce adverse impacts to grassland and

shrubland communities. Alternative B manages lands with wilderness characteristics in the Little

Red Creek Complex as non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics to preserve their wilderness

characteristics, which limits surface disturbance that would adversely impact grasslands and

shrublands. Water quality protections for sole-source aquifers and discharge areas would

beneficially impact vegetation in the areas. The limited amount of identified areas protected by

this management would result in minor beneficial impacts to grasslands and shrublands.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 791

Fire and fuels management under Alternative B is similar to under Alternative A, except that

suppression efforts would only occur in the WUI, developed recreation sites, identified cultural

areas, and aboveground-utility ROWs. There would be no use of heavy equipment during

fire suppression unless recommended by the resource advisor and approved by the Agency

Administrator. This would beneficially impact grasslands and shrublands in the short term, but

could result in long-term adverse impacts as the risk of landscape-level fire increases.

The Alternative B prohibition on clear-cuts might conflict with proposed management regarding

aspen regeneration and would have fewer beneficial impacts to aspen regeneration efforts

compared to Alternative A. While other treatments, such as partial or selective cutting, would

be authorized, these approaches have a lower likelihood of success than clear-cutting (Shepperd

2001). The use of fire in areas outside of Core Area would result in many of the beneficial impacts

associated with clear-cutting, but could result in unintended consequences if not successful

(Shepperd 2001). Within the WUI and in Core Area, prescribed fire is not likely to result in

beneficial impacts. In addition, under Alternative B, emphasizing vegetation treatment projects

rather than range infrastructure would result in more acres of treatment than under Alternative A,

including both fire and mechanized treatment, that would beneficially impact aspen regeneration.

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B riparian-wetlands management would result in many of

the same adverse impacts to grassland and shrubland surrounding riparian-wetland areas, except

on a larger area because the riparian-wetland avoidance zone is more than three times as large

under Alternative B. Additional impacts to riparian-wetland areas are identified in the Livestock

Grazing Management section in this chapter.

Beneficial impacts to grasslands and shrublands from INNS management under Alternative B

would be similar to Alternative A. However, there would be more beneficial impacts under

Alternative B because the Authorized Officer could implement a livestock flushing program. A

flushing program could provide a minimum of 72 hours for livestock known to have been using

forage that includes INNS seeds to pass any ingested seeds through the rumination process to

properly dispose of seeds before livestock enter public lands. This would reduce the spread of

invasive species into native grasslands and shrublands in the planning area. Furthermore, because

range improvement projects would be restricted under Alternative B, more financial resources

would be available to INNS abatement programs. Alternative B would result in the fewest acres

of surface disturbance to control or eradicate invasive species; however, because of the projected

overall surface disturbance, reclamation practices, and restrictions on motorized vehicle use,

Alternative B also would result in the smallest area vulnerable to invasive species establishment.

Alternative B would result in the fewest adverse impacts to grassland and shrubland communities

from INNS management. In addition, the terms of all authorized activities would be adjusted

to reduce the spread of invasive species in the planning area.

Wildlife management actions under Alternative B would result in more indirect beneficial

impacts to grassland and shrubland communities than any other alternative. Alternative B applies

the most surface disturbance restrictions around greater sage-grouse leks and in nesting and

early brood-rearing habitats, which would result in short-term beneficial impacts by preventing

vegetation removal or degradation. However, Alternative B could also result in the least

long-term beneficial impact in these areas by restricting vegetation treatments in areas where

the vegetation community is extremely degraded, especially by occurrence of INNS, or by the

increase in certain conifer species (e.g., juniper). The short-term beneficial impacts of preventing

vegetation loss from surface disturbance could outweigh potential loss of long-term beneficial

impacts from vegetation treatments where they are necessary to restore degraded vegetation

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities
792 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

communities. Impacts from wild horses grazing grasslands and shrublands would be similar to

those under Alternative A.

Impacts from cultural and paleontological resource management under Alternative B would be

similar to those under Alternative A, except that no new range improvement projects would be

constructed on 834 acres of Warm Springs Canyon in Dubois, which would have a beneficial

impact on grassland and shrubland plant communities in that allotment. Alternative B VRM limits

surface disturbance more than Alternative A, with increased beneficial impacts to grasslands

and shrublands.

4.4.2.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative B, oil and gas, wind-energy, and minerals development would result in 16,549

acres of short-term surface disturbance, a portion of which would adversely impact grassland

and shrubland communities by contributing to a decline in abundance, distribution, or health.

This would be substantially less adverse to vegetative health than Alternative A. Alternative

B allows the fewest new oil and gas wells and a limited number of acres open to mineral

extraction. Alternative B makes available a limited number of acres for locatable mineral entry

(approximately 1.2 million acres), which results in the least amount of long-term surface

disturbance compared to the other alternatives. Some of the impacts would be temporary during

the life of the operation, with areas of disturbance being reclaimed following closure of operations.

Alternative B would result in the least acreage of disturbance from pipeline and road development,

and the greatest chance of successful reestablishment of grasses and shrubs following

construction. Alternative B is also projected to result in the least new ROW construction because

of limits to protect greater sage-grouse habitat and reduced disturbance associated with oil and

gas and other mineral development. The projected new ROWs for mineral development under

Alternative B and management designed to encourage large contiguous blocks of important plant

communities would result in the least potential for fragmentation of grasslands and shrublands

and associated loss of diversity, compared to the other alternatives.

Motorized vehicle use under Alternative B would result in impacts to grasslands and shrublands

similar to those under Alternative A, but to a lesser degree. Motorized vehicle use in most of the

planning area is limited to designated roads and trails under Alternative B. Alternative B protects

winter wildlife habitats, sensitive soils, watersheds, and visual resources, and because motorized

and mechanized travel is limited to designated roads and trails subject to seasonal travel limitations

in areas where there are limitations, this would have a beneficial impact on grassland and

shrubland habitats. Overall, Alternative B would result in the fewest adverse impacts to grassland

and shrubland communities from motorized vehicle use, compared to the other alternatives.

Under Alternative B, on an allotment-by-allotment basis, stocking rates would be established

to achieve an adequate residual cover for wildlife and wild horses with a likelihood that

utilization would not exceed 21 to 40 percent, or light use. Managing to a use level of 21 to 40

percent would result in long-term beneficial impacts to grasslands and shrublands. An increase

in vigor, seed production, root reserves, and leaf growth would be most noticeable over the

long term, but managing to a use level of 21 to 40 percent also would be expected to result in

short-term beneficial impacts. Compared to Alternative A, under Alternative B, the placement

of salt and mineral supplements no closer to water than 1⁄2 mile would decrease livestock

impacts to vegetation adjacent to water. Placing salt and mineral supplements this distance away

would improve livestock distribution, thus minimizing impacts to vegetation in grassland and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 793

shrubland communities. Alternative B would result in the least acreage disturbed from rangeland

improvements such as reservoirs, pits, pipelines, and wells and fences, and pose the least threat to

grasslands and shrublands from invasive species spread and livestock concentration. Conversely,

decreasing surface-disturbing rangeland improvement activities could adversely impact some

grassland and shrubland communities where problems with livestock distribution cannot be

addressed without these projects. Reductions in livestock numbers over time are expected to

decrease adverse impacts to grasslands and shrubland. However, this reduction is expected to

be gradual and in response to monitoring. These areas should show slow improvement from the

grazing management implemented.

4.4.2.3.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative B designates the most acres of any alternative as ACECs and other special

designations with management prescriptions that limit surface disturbance. This management

would beneficially impact grassland and shrubland communities. In all ACECs, identified roads

would be reclaimed to reduce erosion. This includes additional acreage reclaimed and brought

back into grassland and shrubland community production. Although small in acreage, this would

add plants to the existing community. ACEC expansions under Alternative B therefore would

extend the beneficial impacts to grassland and shrubland communities to a larger area. Beaver Rim

ACEC management would have direct beneficial impacts on sensitive plant species and unique

plant communities in the ACEC. The Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Grouse ACEC has

limited vegetation treatments to those lands within the proposed ACEC to enhance and improve

grassland and shrublands habitats of the ACEC. This is a major beneficial impact when compared

with Alternative A. Under Alternative B, rangeland improvements and mineral supplementation

are not allowed within 3 miles of Congressionally Designated Trails unless those activities would

not be visible from the trails. Although it is possible individual projects would be allowed on a

site-specific basis, because of topography it is likely that this management would close 305,422

acres to rangeland developments. This would provide immediate relief to vegetation adjacent to

the trail corridors, where livestock congregate and trample and over use vegetation. Beneficial

impacts of implementing this restriction over a greater distance would improve livestock

distribution and improve the plant health and vigor of grassland and shrubland communities.

4.4.2.3.4. Alternative C

4.4.2.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C manages to achieve or make progress toward achieving Wyoming Standards for

Healthy Rangeland for grasslands and shrublands. The Alternative C approach involves more

livestock-dependent economic uses of vegetation, but these uses would be supported with

increased use of BMPs designed to mitigate adverse impacts. However, the projected reduced

vegetative treatments under Alternative C as funds are used to build range infrastructure would

result in adverse impacts. Those adverse impacts could be offset by using the range improvements

across the greatest area to achieve rangeland health standards in areas requiring rehabilitation.

4.4.2.3.4.2. Resources

Impacts would be more adverse under Alternative C than under Alternative B, and similar to

those under Alternative A, by allowing surface disturbances on slopes of up to 25 percent, which

would increase the chances of soil erosion through wind and water. This would directly impact

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities
794 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

vegetation in grassland and shrubland communities, which would be at higher risk to loss as

construction activities increase on steeper slopes. Alternative C does not specially manage any

lands with wilderness characteristics, so there would be no beneficial impacts to the grasslands

and shrublands in this area.

Alternative C utilizes wildland fires and other vegetation treatments to restore fire-adapted

ecosystems, reduce hazardous fuels, and enhance forage for commodity production. Alternative C

includes the same acreage of fuels treatments as Alternative A, and therefore the same probability

of adequate fuel reductions to substantially reduce the risk of landscape-level fire. This is less

treatment than under Alternative B. In addition, Alternative C requires full suppression in all

cases. Compared to the other alternatives, this alternative would result in the short-term beneficial

impact of preventing fire that could destroy or permanently alter grassland and shrubland

communities. Full suppression, however, risks a landscape-level fire with long-term adverse

impacts to grassland and shrubland communities.

Under Alternative C, impacts to aspen regeneration would be the same as under Alternative A,

with potentially more beneficial impacts than under Alternative B, where there is a demand

for clear-cutting. Without such a demand (through either commercial or stewardship sales),

Alternative B’s emphasis on vegetation treatments rather than infrastructure range improvement

projects would likely result in more beneficial impacts than Alternative A or C.

Impacts to grasslands shrublands in the vicinity of riparian-wetlands would be similar to

Alternative A. Under Alternative C, however, range improvement projects, travel management,

and road construction activities are fully utilized to make progress toward achieving Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangelands. The advantages to vegetation associated with project

infrastructure for grazing management would be offset by increased stocking rates over time.

Grazing strategies that entail high stocking and intensive management for a short period have

been proven effective, and they are particularly useful when applied to areas where livestock

show high preference for some areas of a grazing allotment. However, these systems need to be

implemented with precision and they constitute a higher-risk strategy for adverse impacts to

grasslands and shrublands than the prescriptions associated with Alternative B.

Under Alternative C, the impacts to vegetative communities from INNS management would be

similar to impacts under Alternative A. Impacts associated with INNS management would be

the greatest under Alternative C because it involves the most surface disturbance, which makes

the most acres vulnerable to new INNS. INNS would establish new surface disturbance and less

restrictive management of motorized vehicle use. Alternative C relies on the extensive use of

BMPs to contain INNS infestations.

Wildlife management actions under Alternative C would result in the least beneficial impacts

to grassland and shrubland communities, compared to the other alternatives. Compared to

the other alternatives, Alternative C applies the same surface disturbance restrictions around

greater sage-grouse leks and in nesting and early brood-rearing habitats as Alternative A, and

many fewer than Alternative B. These management actions would result in the least short-term

beneficial impacts by preventing vegetation removal or degradation in these areas. Alternative

C gives livestock forage requirements priority when allocating grassland and shrubland forage.

In areas identified as crucial winter range and parturition areas, Alternative C would manage

vegetation to benefit all grazing and browsing animals (livestock and wildlife). Alternative C

allows vegetation treatments over a larger area than the other alternatives. This would result in

long-term beneficial impacts to grasslands and shrublands by reducing fuel loads; however,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 795

Alternative C provides substantially less funding for vegetation treatments than Alternative B,

because it allocates funds for range development.

Impacts to grasslands and shrublands from cultural, paleontological, and VRM under Alternative

C would be similar to impacts under Alternative A, except that VRM for areas designated as

ACECs (see below) includes fewer limitations on surface disturbance and therefore results in

more adverse impacts to grasslands and shrublands.

4.4.2.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative C, oil and gas and other minerals development would result in more short-term

surface disturbance, a preponderance of which would adversely impact grassland and shrubland

communities by contributing to a decline in abundance, distribution, or health of the vegetation.

Alternative C would result in the most new oil and gas wells and the most area to remain open

to mineral extraction. Leasable minerals development would result in the greatest amount of

long-term surface disturbance, and potential development would be more likely under Alternative

C than the other alternatives. Some impacts would be temporary during the life of operations,

with areas of disturbance being reclaimed following closure of operations. Overall, minerals

development under Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impact to grassland

and shrubland communities. Alternative C makes available the most area for wind-energy

development, which would result in adverse impacts to vegetation.

Surface disturbance under Alternative C would result in the largest number of acres to reclaim. As

acres of disturbance increase, the chances of successful reclamation in these areas would decrease

compared to the other alternatives. Alternative C allows the greatest acreage of disturbance from

pipeline and road development and more chance reestablishment of grasses and shrubs would not

be successful following construction. In DDAs, reclamation standards address soil stabilization

in the interim with a higher percentage of grasses, rather than restoring predisturbance plant

communities (see Appendix D (p. 1477)). Alternative C includes the most new road construction

associated with mineral and realty development, with the greatest potential for fragmentation of

grasslands and shrublands. Fragmentation of lands associated with loss of species diversity would

be an adverse impact to grasslands and shrublands under Alternative C, unlike Alternative B,

which manages for large contiguous blocks of important plant communities.

Alternative C also limits motorized vehicle use to existing or designated roads and trails with

seasonal travel limitations on the Lander Slope and in the Red Canyon, Whiskey Mountain, Green

Mountain, and East Fork areas. Alternative C also limits motorized travel in the WSA portion of

the Dubois Badlands and the Castle Gardens ACEC to designated roads and trails. In addition,

WSAs retains limits on motorized travel to designated roads and trails as described for Alternative

A. These limitations would beneficially impact plant communities, but Alternative C protects

fewer communities than alternatives A and B. Alternative C would result in the most long-term

surface disturbance from motorized vehicle use as a result of BLM actions, which would directly

impact grasslands and shrublands by removing vegetation. Alternative C allows cross-country

motorized travel for carcass retrieval and dispersed campsites so long as there would be no

resource damage, which would result in more adverse impacts than alternatives A and B. However

it is difficult to detect and contain subtle impacts such as transportation of INNS, so grassland

and shrubland communities at greater risk of adverse impacts under Alternative C than under

Alternative B. Overall, Alternative C would result in the most adverse impacts to grassland and

shrubland communities from motorized vehicle use compared to the other alternatives.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities
796 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative C maintains use levels in all grazing allotments on an allotment-by-allotment basis

that will result in less residual forage for wildlife consumption and residual cover. This is

likely to be at a use level of 41 to 60 percent (moderate use) but that will be determined on

a site-specific basis. Placement of salt and mineral supplements is similar to Alternative A,

and placed to maximize forage utilization, which would put more use on individual plants in

grassland and shrubland communities. Placing salt and mineral supplements 1⁄4 mile from water

would increase grazing in the surrounding riparian-wetland vegetation. A secondary impact

would be more use in the riparian-wetland communities. Alternative C includes an increase in

range improvement projects to make more acres available for grazing, thus adversely impacting

traditionally non-grazed grassland and shrubland areas. Over the next 20 years, the BLM

estimates that 220 miles of new pasture-division fence will be constructed and 150 new water

sources will be developed (34 springs, 48 reservoirs/pits, and 68 new wells). The increase in

projects would make approximately 283,000 new acres available for livestock grazing. Increases

in stocking must be offset by intensive management enabled by project infrastructure. Intensive

management approaches can fail unless they are implemented with precision. Grazing strategies

that do not meet objectives would need to be identified and revised, which would require intensive

monitoring and management. Some plant communities would change because communities

subject to adverse impacts from failed grazing management could cross the “threshold” beyond

which the changes would not be not readily reversible.

Under Alternative C, forage reserve allotments are not established and flexibility for permittees

with alternative areas to graze would not be available if there were a an event such as a

landscape-level wildfire. This would result in the same impact as under Alternative A, and would

be more adverse to vegetation than under Alternative B. Not allowing an area to rest and recover

from a catastrophic event would reduce desirable vegetation in the area, thus allowing the

potential for invasive species to establish. Conversely, having a forage reserve allotment would

provide flexibility and relief from grazing in areas that have a catastrophic event.

4.4.2.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C would result in the least beneficial impacts to grassland and shrubland communities

than the other alternatives because Alternative C designates no ACECs, and does not recommend

any NWSRS-eligible segments as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS. Congressionally

Designated Trails management would have the same reduced beneficial impacts as Alternative A.

4.4.2.3.5. Alternative D

4.4.2.3.5.1. Program Management

Under all alternatives, the BLM manages to achieve or make progress toward achieving Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangeland for grasslands and shrublands. The approach associated with

Alternative D entails more economic uses of vegetation than Alternative B and approximately the

same as Alternative A, but these uses are supported with increased use of BMPs and Required

Design Features to mitigate adverse impacts. Compared to Alternative B, Alternative D includes

fewer acres of vegetation treatments to improve vegetation conditions and manages to achieve

diversity of site composition, approximately the same as Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 797

4.4.2.3.5.2. Resources

Alternative D would result in slightly fewer adverse impacts than alternatives A and C in its slope

management, but moderately more than Alternative B because there is more surface disturbance

in general under Alternative D. In addition, like alternatives A and C, Alternative D allows

surface disturbances on slopes of up to 25 percent, which increases the chances of soil erosion

through wind and water in grassland and shrubland communities at higher risk for loss when

construction activities increase on steeper slopes. Required Design Features limit adverse impacts

to soil and therefore soil erosion in greater sage-grouse habitat.

Alternative D utilizes wildland fires and other vegetation treatments to restore fire-adapted

ecosystems, reduce hazardous fuels, and enhance forage for healthy rangelands and commodity

production; however, the use of fire as a tool in sagebrush is limited. Alternative D includes fewer

acres of prescribed fire and fuels treatments than Alternative B, and more acres than alternatives

A and C. Alternative D is similar to Alternative A in its fire suppression activities, except that

more of an emphasis on fire suppression is required in sagebrush, so its adverse or beneficial

impacts to vegetation would be the same, which would be more beneficial in the short term and

less beneficial in the long term than Alternative B. The reverse is true compared to Alternative C,

as Alternative D would result in more adverse short-term and less adverse long-term impacts.

Therefore, Alternative D involves a lower risk of landscape-level fire than alternatives A and C,

but less than Alternative B. It is not possible to determine the significance of this difference.

Adverse impacts to sagebrush grasslands within 1⁄4 mile of riparian-wetlands under Alternative

D would be similar to and somewhat more adverse than under Alternative B and less adverse

than under alternatives A and C. Alternative D uses rangeland developments (fences and water

developments) to improve riparian-wetlands if they are part of a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy.

This management would shift some livestock grazing out of riparian-wetland areas and into

uplands that have historically experienced lower utilization levels (see Resource Uses). Other

strategies may be developed across the planning area with the increased flexibility provided.

Under Alternative D, impacts to aspen regeneration are similar to those under alternatives A and

C. Alternative D would likely result in more vegetation treatment than those two alternatives,

but less than Alternative B. The demand for commercial cutting would likely limit the beneficial

impacts identified under Alternative A, but noncommercial treatment would result in beneficial

impacts under Alternative D. However, it is likely that most vegetation treatments would prioritize

sagebrush treatments in Core Area with a lesser emphasis on aspen regeneration which would

limit the beneficial impacts under Alternative D.

INNS management under Alternative D is similar to alternatives A and C in allowing chemical

treatment as one of the tools to eliminate INNS where necessary, although management must

evaluate the potential adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse.

Wildlife management actions under Alternative D would beneficially impact grassland and

shrubland communities more than under alternatives A and C, but less than under Alternative

B because of limitations on surface disturbance and Required Design Features. In the greater

sage-grouse Core Area, alternatives D and B would beneficially impact grasslands and shrubland

communities by prohibiting surface disturbance within 0.6 miles of greater sage-grouse leks.

However, Alternative B is more beneficial to grasslands because Core Area is closed to new

oil and gas leasing for the benefit of greater sage-grouse. The difference in benefit is limited,

however, by the relatively limited amount of oil and gas potential inside Core Area. Outside the

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities
798 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Core Area, Alternative D applies a 1⁄4-mile buffer around leks, which would be moderately more

adverse than the Alternative B 0.6-mile buffer, which would preclude development in areas with

oil and gas potential that is likely to be developed. (However, many of the lands within the

0.6-mile buffer outside of Core Area with oil and gas potential are already leased, and the new

restrictions of Alternative B are further limited.) Limits on surface disturbance would result in

beneficial impacts by preventing vegetation removal or degradation and long-term beneficial

impacts where reclamation or reestablishment of predisturbance conditions is not likely or the

vegetation is permanently removed.

Alternative D focuses on vegetation for all foraging animals, unlike Alternative C, which

prioritizes livestock forage requirements. In this regard, Alternative D would result in fewer

beneficial impacts than Alternative B and more than alternatives A and C.

Under Alternative D, impacts to grasslands and shrublands from cultural, paleontological, and

VRM would be similar to Alternative B, but less beneficial. Alternatives B and D would result

in more beneficial impacts to vegetation from heritage and VRM than alternatives A and C as a

result of limits on surface disturbance to protect these resources.

4.4.2.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative D, leasable minerals and other minerals development result in more short-term

surface disturbance than Alternative B, but less than alternatives A and C. The Required Design

Features and the areas NSO to oil and gas leasing for the protection of many resources would be

less adverse than under alternatives A and C, but more than under Alternative B. However, oil and

gas minerals in the areas not subject to NSO management are relatively limited and would still

receive the benefits of the Required Design Features and selected BMPs made COAs in Core

Area. Alternative D includes considerably more areas proposed for withdrawal from locatable

mineral entry and therefore more beneficial impacts to grasslands and shrublands than alternatives

A and B, but less than Alternative B. Alternative D closes more areas to mineral materials disposal

than alternatives A and C. Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts to grasslands and

shrublands than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B. Some of the adverse impacts

would be temporary during the life of the operation, with areas of disturbance reclaimed following

closure of operations; however, long-term adverse impacts from mineral developments could

result from unsuccessful reclamation to predisturbance conditions. Overall, minerals development

under Alternative D would result in the second least adverse impacts to grassland and shrubland

communities, although considerably more than would occur under Alternative B.

Alternative D has approximately the same amount of lands with wind-energy potential for

industrial wind-energy development as Alternative B, and therefore would result in the same

adverse impacts to grasslands and shrublands. See Chapter 2 for a comparison of these acres

and management.

Surface disturbance under Alternative D would result in more acres to reclaim than under

Alternative B, moderately fewer than under Alternative A, and moderately to substantially fewer

than Alternative C, thus decreasing the likelihood of both short and long-term adverse impacts

to grassland and shrubland communities. The Alternative D reduced area of disturbance from

pipeline and road development would result in a better chance of successful reestablishment of

grasses and shrubs following construction. In energy development areas, reclamation standards

address soil stabilization in the interim with a higher percentage of grasses, rather than restoring

predisturbance plant communities (see Appendix I (p. 1535)).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 799

Alternative D includes the second lowest new ROW construction associated with mineral

and realty development, with substantially less potential for fragmentation of grasslands

and shrublands than alternatives A and C. Fragmentation of lands associated with loss of

species diversity, an adverse impact to grasslands and shrublands; therefore, Alternative D, like

Alternative B but to a lesser degree, would beneficially impact grasslands and shrublands by

managing for large contiguous blocks of important plant communities.

Alternative D closes fewer areas to motorized vehicle use than Alternative B, but more than

alternatives A and C; Chapter 2 identifies the respective acreage under each alternative.

Alternative D also imposes restrictions on new road development similar to those under

Alternative B, but to a lesser extent. Limitations on roads and motorized vehicle travel would

beneficially impact grasslands and shrublands by limiting the removal of vegetation and deterring

user-created roads. This would be substantially more beneficial than alternatives A and C, which

do not include this management.

Under Alternative D, livestock grazing management overall would be more beneficial to

shrubland and grassland communities than alternatives A and C, but less Alternative B. Although

the livestock grazing program might use rangeland improvements such as fences and water

(see Chapter 2), they are authorized only when the benefits associated with the improvement in

rangeland health exceed the adverse impacts associated with the project. As implemented on an

allotment basis, with proper stocking levels and implementation of range improvements, this

would avoid adverse impacts to grassland and shrubland communities. Alternative D would result

in somewhat fewer adverse impacts to upland communities than Alternative A and moderately

fewer than Alternative C, but more than Alternative B. This requires that identified rangeland

health issues be addressed through lowered stocking rates or other non-infrastructure-related

management.

Range improvement projects under Alternative D would develop water in upland acres to increase

their suitability for livestock grazing. Other strategies may be developed across the planning

area with the increased flexibility provided. This would have the potential to adversely impact

grasslands and shrublands that have not historically been grazed by domestic animals.

Alternative D fully utilizes range improvement projects, travel management, and road

construction activities to make progress toward achieving the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands. The decreased stocking rates would result in moderate beneficial impacts to

grasslands and shrublands when associated with project infrastructure for grazing management.

Grazing strategies that entail high-stocking levels and intensive management for a short period

have been proven effective, and they are particularly useful when applied to areas where livestock

show high preference for some areas of a grazing allotment. However, these systems need to be

implemented with precision and they constitute a higher risk strategy for adverse impacts to

grassland and shrublands than the prescriptions associated with Alternative B. Grazing strategies

that are not meeting objectives would need to be identified and revised requiring intensive

monitoring and management. Some plant communities would undergo change, in that plant

communities considered to have adverse impacts from grazing management failure may cross the

“threshold” beyond which these changes are not readily reversible.

Alternative D livestock grazing management regarding the placement of salt and mineral

supplements would result in beneficial impacts to uplands similar to Alternative B and moderately

more beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C because Alternative D identifies larger

avoidance zones.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities
800 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative D would result in moderately more adverse impacts to grassland and shrubland

communities than Alternative B by establishing stocking rates on an allotment-by-allotment basis

that would result in residual forage for wildlife similar to alternatives A and C and would likely

result in utilization not exceeding 41 to 60 percent (moderate use). As use levels approached 60

percent, this would result in some areas experiencing more adverse impacts than for the light use

under Alternative B.

As under Alternative B, forage reserve allotments under Alternative D would be established

when opportunities allow, which would provide flexibility for permittees if an event such as a

landscape-level wildfire occurred, and would be a beneficial impact to grassland and shrubland

communities. Alternatives A and C do not manage with forage reserves, which would result in a

greater adverse impact to vegetation than Alternative D.

4.4.2.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative D management of Congressionally Designated Trails in the NTMC precludes the use

of livestock supplements within 1⁄2 mile of NHTs and other important areas. (The NTMC NSO

management is identified above as part of the large resource protection area.) This would result

in the same beneficial impacts to the grassland and shrubland communities as Alternative B.

Alternatives A and C would result in more adverse impacts because the buffer is smaller under

those alternatives. Alternative D is less restrictive with VRM and would include more range

improvement projects than Alternative B in areas near the NTMC, as long as the viewshed and

setting of the Congressionally Designated Trails was not impacted. This is less beneficial than

Alternative B to grasslands and shrublands, but far less adverse than alternatives A and C.

Alternative D limits additional range improvements acres in areas where money generated

through leasing fees may be spent (Taylor Grazing Act Section 15 allotments) unless the purpose

of the project is to enhance certain ACEC resource values. This is less than Alternative B and

therefore less beneficial to grassland and shrubland communities. Alternatives A and C do not

include limits on rangeland improvements for any ACEC.

Alternative D recommends the Warm Springs Creek Segment 1, Baldwin Creek and Sweetwater

River units as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS and would manage these waterways to protect

their free-flowing values, providing a beneficial impact to grassland and shrubland communities

near these waterways. Theoretically, Alternative D would result in fewer beneficial impacts to

grassland and shrubland communities than Alternative B because Alternative D protects fewer

waterways. However, this difference can only be quantified on a site-specific basis because

vegetation mapping is not fine enough to distinguish grassland and shrubland plant communities

at a planning area-wide scale.

4.4.3. Invasive Species and Pest Management

This section describes the impacts to the INNS program under each alternative in terms of direct,

indirect, short-term, and long-term impacts.

The presence of INNS in the planning area is considered an adverse impact. Actions that

contribute to the introduction of INNS, the spread of existing INNS populations, or that avoid,

reduce, or prohibit INNS control activities in the planning area also are considered adverse

impacts. Actions that reduce opportunities for INNS spread are considered beneficial impacts.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 801

Direct impacts to INNS management typically result from actions that disturb the soil or that

otherwise create habitats (seedbed) for the establishment of INNS. Indirect impacts result from

activities that avoid, reduce, or prohibit INNS control activities in the planning area. The

transport to other locations of INNS seed or propagules by wildlife, livestock, vehicles, wind,

or water, thereby expanding the distribution of INNS or increasing the rate of INNS spread, is

also considered an indirect impact.

4.4.3.1. Summary of Impacts

INNS would be expected to spread under all alternatives. Alternatives that involve the most

projected surface disturbance would have the potential to result in the greatest spread of INNS.

Stringent reclamation requirements, especially reclamation plans before surface disturbance,

would decrease long-term disturbance and the likelihood of INNS establishment. Based on

projected surface disturbance, Alternative C would result in the greatest spread of INNS, followed

by alternatives A, D, and B, having the least potential surface disturbance.

4.4.3.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Roadways, trails, and ROW and other corridors are the most likely routes for the spread of

INNS through transport on motorized vehicles, including OHVs. INNS also can spread

through watercourses, by wind, and by wildlife and livestock movement.

● Although there are exceptions, most INNS are less likely to invade relatively undisturbed

and healthy natural vegetative communities.

● The amount of new surface disturbance associated with an alternative is a good index

for measuring potential impacts of INNS. The larger the acreage of surface disturbance,

the greater the potential adverse impacts of INNS, although it is not necessarily a linear

relationship. Mineral exploration and development, including oil and gas leasable minerals,

non-oil and gas leasable minerals, locatable minerals, and salable minerals often result in high

levels of surface-disturbing activity and human presence, which leads to the introduction and

establishment of INNS. The more mineral development, the more adverse impact to the

INNS, although reclamation efforts can help reduce this trend.

● Partners Against Weeds – An Action Plan for the BLM (BLM 1996) establishes a strategy

to prevent invasive plant species through cooperation with all partners. It outlines goals and

specific actions to help prevent and control the spread of invasive plant species. This action

plan, along with any future updates and guidance, will be followed to control and prevent

invasive plant species problems under all alternatives.

● Seeds from some INNS can remain dormant and viable in the soil for periods that exceed the

5-year division between short- and long-term impacts. Therefore, favorable site conditions

could serve to reintroduce INNS in the short term without additional surface disturbance.

● INNS will continue to be introduced and spread as a result of ongoing traffic in and out of

the planning area by recreational activities, wildlife and livestock movements and grazing,

and surface-disturbing activities.

● The BLM will continue to treat INNS and pests on public land. Livestock permit holders,

ROW holders, and mineral lease, claim, and permit holders will continue to treat invasive

plant species and pests on public land as stipulated in their permits and authorizations. This

does not vary by alternative.

● Weed and pest control, inventory, monitoring, and research will be performed in coordination

with the appropriate federal and state agencies and authorized users of BLM-administered

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management
802 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

public lands, with the appropriate county weed and pest control districts acting as the primary

points of contact among all involved parties.

● 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. Most INNS do not pose a threat to natural or human systems.

However, pests are defined as any organism that causes economic or aesthetic damage to

humans or their property, and species defined as pests change frequently. As species become

of greater concern, the Lander Field Office will cooperate and coordinate with appropriate

government agencies, private industry, and other interested parties involved in public

education efforts and control, management, and research of INNS.

● BLM Washington Office IM 2006-073, Weed-Free Seed Use On Lands Administered

by the Bureau of Land Management, establishes policy and guidance for use of certified

weed-free seed and BLM Washington Office IM 1999-076, BLM Policy on the Use of

Certified Weed-free Hay, Straw, and Mulch on BLM Land, establishes policy for the use of

certified weed-free hay, forage, straw, and mulch to prevent the establishment of new INNS in

restoration projects on public lands.

4.4.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.4.3.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The types of impacts of INNS and pest control would be common to all alternatives. The BLM

will coordinate with individuals, groups, and other agencies to utilize Integrated Pest Management

(IPM) using chemical, biological, and cultural methods for the control of INNS and pests as

needed. The types of impacts under the alternatives would be similar; however, the intensity of

impacts would vary by alternative. Impacts resulting from surface-disturbing activities (e.g., fire

management, minerals and realty actions, recreation, dispersed travel, and the management of

special designations) and surface-disruptive activities (e.g., livestock grazing and OHV use)

are described under each alternative.

INNS on BLM-administered surface lands and federal mineral estate could spread under each

alternative through activities proposed across a variety of resource programs. While the types

of impacts from INNS as a result of surface-disturbing activities would not vary by alternative,

the intensity would. Appendix T (p. 1641) lists projected surface disturbance by alternative

during the planning period. The acres of surface disturbance in the analysis that follows are from

this appendix. INNS create adverse impacts because of the lack of natural predators capable

of keeping the system in balance. INNS can lead to unstable soils, changes in soil chemistry,

losses in land productivity, loss of wildlife habitat, and loss of available forage for wildlife and

livestock. Species such as cheatgrass have a profound influence on the fire regime; they impact

fire frequency, which leads to additional direct and indirect adverse impacts. Pollen from invasive

plant species can adversely impact human health by causing hay fever and other allergic reactions.

Adverse impacts from surface disturbance are different depending upon type of disturbance. The

more dispersed the disturbance and the less concentrated the disturbance, the greater the adverse

impact to INNS because of the greater likelihood of spread.

Healthy herbaceous communities that meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands are

more resistant to INNS invasion than vegetation communities in an earlier seral stage or showing

signs of degradation. Outbreaks of insects such as grasshoppers and Mormon crickets can result

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 803

in severe forage losses and can lead to adverse impacts to the health of the herbaceous community.

Some pathogens, such as WNV, or other mosquito-transmitted diseases rely on the availability

of stagnant water typically found in playas, ponds, reservoirs, and drilling reserve pits. As

mosquito populations increase, so does the potential for exposure to pathogens such as the WNV;

Fremont County commonly leads the state in reported cases of WNV. Rodents such as mice can

increase the potential for exposure to viral pathogens such as hantavirus. However, these types of

exposures are generally confined to very small sites that provide the habitat needs of the animals.

All alternatives use various methods to minimize impacts from INNS. BMPs, watershed

enhancement projects, conservation practices, Storm Water Discharge Plans, project-specific

soil investigations, and reclamation plans are designed to reduce adverse impacts to soil,

resulting in greater reclamation success and limiting opportunities for INNS establishment.

The BLM participates in the Fremont County Weed and Pest Control District to coordinate

efforts in three Weed Management Areas, where there is a unified effort between agencies and

landowners in each Weed Management Area. The three Weed Management Areas cover all of the

BLM-administered lands in Fremont County.

Although the alternatives vary in the amount of federal mineral estate open to locatable mineral

development and mineral material disposals, a much smaller area has commercial potential. All

alternatives foresee that approximately 95 acres a year will be disturbed for locatable mineral

entry and 183 acres will be disturbed for mineral material disposals, although this could change

with market changes and activities. Accordingly, the alternatives do not vary in the INNS impacts.

INNS often have a strong correlation to sources of readily available water such as reservoirs.

Under all alternatives, the Lander Field Office will inventory reservoirs on BLM-administered

lands and prioritize the rehabilitation or reclamation of the ones functionally compromised. This

would help disturbed sites resist INNS and, with successful rehabilitation or reclamation, be a

long-term beneficial impact.

Wind-energy development has adverse impacts to the INNS program. Industrial-scale

development requires a wide spacing – 5 to 6 turbines per 640 acres (one section) or 128 to 107

acres spacing. This will require more roads and more underground utilities over a far broader

area than any other type of resource use. Oil and gas wells, in contrast, are generally on 40 acre

spacing and ISR uranium wells can be as concentrated as 100-foot spacing. Thus, the degree of

adverse impact to the INNS program is disproportionately greater than the acres disturbed. Only

portions of the long-term disturbance would result in adverse impacts to the INNS program

because buildings and other permanent structures themselves do not contribute to INNS although

roads and human activities do.

Concentrated livestock use has resulted in adverse impacts when the removal of herbaceous

vegetation is excessive and adequate vegetation does not remain to protect the soils. Loss of

native vegetation provides opportunities for INNS to establish, but each alternative contains

BMPs designed to limit this impact. The acres closed to livestock grazing would not have any

potential for these adverse impacts from livestock grazing although other forms of concentrated

herbivory could have similar impacts.

All alternatives assume that existing range infrastructure will remain although some alternatives

provide for removal or moderate fences as opportunities occur. The different among the

alternatives on a planning area wide basis would be minimal. The alternatives vary substantially

in whether new range infrastructure will be utilized or whether vegetation treatment types of range

improvement projects will be implemented.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management
804 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

All alternatives prohibit cross-country motorized travel, which would prevent the proliferation of

unauthorized routes and vegetation removal that could increase suitable habitat for invasive plant

species infestations or spread invasive plant species seeds and propagules to uncontaminated

locations. In addition, management actions that restore plant communities, enhance native plant

communities, and make them better able to resist invasive plant species invasion. Impacts from

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities are mitigated through the application of the Wyoming

BLM Standard Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (Appendix

M (p. 1595)).

The wildland fire program will consider the presence and potential for INNS when designing

wildland fire response and fuels treatments. All equipment and vehicles used for BLM-authorized

activities, including the fire program, will be cleaned of INNS seeds and propagules before

entering BLM-administered lands. Typically, this provision applies to out-of-county fire vehicles

and equipment.

The presence of invasive plant species can alter natural fire regimes to the point where increased

fire frequency leads to adverse short- and/or long-term impacts that degrade other resources,

such as accelerated soil erosion and fertility losses, water quality degradation, loss of wildlife

habitat and species diversity, loss of livestock forage, and in some cases, risks to property and

human health and safety. Under all alternatives, the Lander Field Office will coordinate with

other agencies to develop a plan for the management of cheatgrass in an effort to minimize the

impacts of cheatgrass to the natural fire frequency cycle, and impacts to soil stability and forage

production. Prescribed fire in the planning area can impact soils in the short term by removing

vegetation and exposing soils to water and wind erosion. Following a fire, early seral-stage

species and INNS can become established and can provide some stabilization of soils. However,

the level of soil stability provided by these early seral-stage species is limited. In the long term,

fire can beneficially impact soil resources and, secondarily INNS management, by improving

land health and reducing erosion and the risk of landscape-level fire. Following successful

reclamation, the BLM does not anticipate long-term surface disturbance or associated erosion

from prescribed fire or chemical or mechanical fuels treatments. Fuels management could result

in a short-term adverse impact and a long-term beneficial to soil resources. The amount of fuels

treatment varies by alternative.

INNS are managed to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix

J (p. 1537)) to protect and improve rangeland health. Of priority concern are Wyoming Declared

Weeds; their presence is considered a threat, regardless of their influence on rangeland health

(BLM 2009h).

All alternatives manage grassland and shrubland communities to meet Wyoming Standards

for Healthy Rangelands. The differences between favoring production more oriented toward

wildlife, wild horses, or livestock does not lead to different impacts as a result of management

emphasis, because all of these animals will contribute to the spread of invasive plant species via

their movement across the landscape.

All alternatives implement a program to promote public awareness of INNS and emphasize the

Wyoming Declared Weeds and INNS most likely to invade from other states. Early detection is

critical to the control of invasive plant species; therefore, public awareness provides a benefit

to IPM management.

Requiring BLM-authorized activities and programs to use certified weed-free forage, mulch, and

other land-applied products (BLM 1999) would result in beneficial impacts by limiting a possible

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 805

vector for infesting BLM-administered lands and other adjacent land. The county weed and

pest control districts certify these products locally and maintain lists of local providers. All

alternatives require weed-free feed; therefore the beneficial impacts of this management would

not vary by alternative.

INNS program management actions common to all alternatives require that all equipment and

vehicles used to perform BLM program work or authorized activities be cleaned of INNS seeds

and propagules before they enter BLM-administered lands. Also, equipment and vehicles that

perform BLM program work or authorized activities in areas of known INNS/Wyoming Declared

Weeds will be required to be cleaned of INNS seeds and propagules before leaving worksites;

containment of sediment and wash water is required. These requirements for cleaning equipment

and vehicles to prevent the spread of INNS beneficially impact other resources that rely on

healthy vegetative communities.

WSAs will remain unchanged under any alternative with a total of 55,338 acres.

Surface-disturbing activities are highly restricted in WSAs, thus providing a collateral beneficial

impact for management of INNS.

All alternatives include actions that restrict surface disturbance in the planning area; these

actions are generally considered to result in a beneficial impact by stopping the spread of INNS.

For example, withdrawals that close areas to surface-disturbing activities, or requirements

for construction, operation, monitoring, and rehabilitation planning before surface-disturbing

activities are initiated would, at a minimum, reduce the potential for impacts that could contribute

to the spread of INNS.

All alternatives will require mineral and realty applicants to prevent introduction and spread of

INNS. This management historically did not prevent introduction of INNS along new roads and

other surface disturbance. In all alternatives INNS management efficacy is dependent upon

enforcement.

The management of the Beaver Rim area varies by alternative. The impacts to the INNS program

are the same as the impacts to the oil and gas program but in reverse. Alternatives B and D

limits surface disturbance either by closing the area to leasing or making a portion of the area

subject to an NSO stipulation. By limiting surface disturbance, the INNS program is beneficially

impacted. Similarly, alternatives A and C only utilize standard steepness of slope stipulations

and therefore allow more surface disturbance which increases the potentially adverse impacts to

the INNS program in the Beaver Rim area.

4.4.3.3.2. Alternative A

4.4.3.3.2.1. Program Management

Alternative A manages authorized activities likely to spread INNS on a case-by-case basis. This

includes cleaning work equipment to remove INNS seeds and propagules; the use of certified

weed-free materials; site-specific INNS inventories; avoidance; eradication/treatment; enhanced

weed-free seed requirements for reclamation work; monitoring; and coordination with the

appropriate county weed and pest control district. These methods have worked well to limit the

introduction of declared (Wyoming) weeds to surface disturbances authorized by the BLM.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management
806 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Range improvement projects almost always involve the construction of infrastructure such as

fences and water developments rather than vegetation and weed treatments. Under present

management, livestock flushing has not been required for livestock that move from private

lands infested with Wyoming Declared Weeds to BLM-administered lands, which puts

BLM-administered lands at risk of infestation from this vector.

Under Alternative A, the Lander Field Office will monitor and determine if authorized activities

are contributing to the spread of INNS. In the event authorized activities are creating an

adverse impact due to the spread of INNS, the Lander Field Office will adjust the terms of the

authorization to aid in the control of INNS on a case-by-case basis. This provides a beneficial

impact to INNS management in the areas where adjustments are made.

4.4.3.3.2.2. Resources

Alternative A management imposes standard measures to mitigate for impacts to soils, which

would beneficially impact INNS management by restricting development in the areas with LRP

soils. The water resources program under Alternative A prohibits or avoids surface-disturbing

activities in groundwater recharge areas on a case-by-case basis, which would beneficially impact

the INNS program to a moderate degree. Alternative A does not restrict the use of pesticides

for INNS control. The restrictions on the pesticide label are considered adequate to protect

groundwater resources when applied correctly.

Alternative A includes full suppression of fire and authorizes soil disturbance associated with

suppression activities on a case-by-case basis. Fire suppression and rehabilitation activities also

have the potential to spread INNS, an adverse impact in both the short and long term. Activities

such as firebreak construction, vegetation clearing, and use of heavy equipment would disturb

the soil surface and increase the risk of INNS introduction and infestation in the short term. In

the long term, however, successful stabilization efforts can increase cover, with a subsequent

reduction in erosion and sediment production to natural rates.

Forest and woodland management for the promotion of timber production under Alternative A

restricts certain forest product sales in areas where soil erosion is likely, which would beneficially

impact INNS management. These restrictions would reduce short-term adverse impacts from

exposing disturbed soils to INNS infestation. In the long term, these restrictions would help

return the forest community to natural levels of appropriate vegetative species and ground cover.

However, this beneficial impact would likely be minimal because of the limited demand for forest

products. Alternative A avoids surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of surface water and

riparian-wetland areas, which creates a buffer that will afford native plant communities moderate

short- and long-term protection from potential INNS introduction and infestation.

Management actions under Alternative A designed to protect wildlife and special status species

habitat from the impacts of surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities would also protect

the planning area from adverse impacts associated with the presence of INNS. Restrictions such

as NSO and CSU in crucial wildlife habitat would limit development in these areas and provide a

mutual beneficial impact for INNS management. This alternative closes and reclaims unnecessary

roads and old mineral exploration trails to improve habitat on a case-by-case basis. The degree of

this less protective management depends on whether disturbance would be likely for development.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 807

Management for the benefit of greater sage-grouse minimally limits surface disturbance and thus

provides only a small protection from INNS. It is likely that the 1⁄4-mile buffer will only relocate

disturbance and will not serve to cap it.

Management prescriptions under Alternative A designed to protect cultural, paleontological, and

visual resources from the impacts of surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities would

also protect against adverse impacts associated with INNS introduction and infestation. Disturbed

soil is highly susceptible to INNS infestation. Therefore, limits on surface disturbance would help

the land resist weed seed germination, and limiting motorized vehicle use would eliminate that

vector for weed seed and propagule introduction.

4.4.3.3.2.3. Resource Uses

As indicated in Impacts Common to All Alternatives, mineral development generally results

in an increase in the introduction and spread of INNS. Alternative A is expected to result in

approximately 21,234 acres of initial disturbance and approximately 9,895 acres of long-term

disturbance related to mineral development. Alternative A opens a substantial amount of the

planning area to non-oil and gas leasing but only small areas have mineral development potential

(primarily phosphate). If these resources were developed it is likely that INNS management

would be adversely impacted. Analysis of phosphate development is found in the discussion of

Lander Slope, Red Canyon, and Beaver Rim ACECs in the Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern section in this chapter. No acres of surface disturbance are projected.

Alternative A withdraws approximately 23,114 acres from locatable mineral entry, which would

beneficially impact INNS management because it would restrict surface disturbance in those

areas. Almost all of the mineral estate is available for mineral material disposal under Alternative

A (although not the 23,114 acres withdrawn). Alternative A imposes moderate limits on surface

disturbance in soils with LRP, which could beneficially impact the INNS program by directing

mineral materials disposals to soils with better reclamation potential, therefore making it less

likely that the area of disturbance would become infested with INNS.

Alternative A opens almost all of the planning area to wind-energy development; however, it

opens only 283,647 acres with high potential for commercial development. Based upon other

resource conflicts, it is estimated that 2,250 acres of short-term disturbance and 1,250 acres of

long-term disturbance would be developed under this alternative, with 50 turbines located on

10–8 sections. Such a development will adversely impact the INNS program by facilitating the

introduction and spread of INNS.

Alternative A manages new ROWs (not associated with wind or on-lease oil and gas operations)

by co-locating them with existing ROWs where possible. However, ROWs could be authorized

in other locations, which would increase surface disturbance and result in potential adverse

impacts to the INNS program. ROW development under Alternative A would result in 11,872

acres of short-term disturbance and 684 acres of long-term disturbance. Approximately 232

acres would be roads, with an increased risk of INNS spread. Alternative A has 66,099 acres of

ROW avoidance areas and 205,916 acres of ROW exclusion areas, which would be beneficial

impacts to the INNS program.

Alternative A allows livestock grazing on 2,324,934 acres of the planning area. and does not

closes any acres to livestock grazing. The potential adverse impacts to the INNS program are

described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Alternative A would authorize range

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management
808 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

improvement projects with approximately 860 acres of surface disturbance with increased risk

of INNS spread. Alternative A also prohibits the placement of salt and mineral supplements

within 1⁄4 mile of water, wetlands, riparian areas, and reclaimed or reforested areas, which

would reduce vegetation removal, soil compaction and sediment production from concentrated

livestock grazing and traffic. This would beneficially impact the INNS program by preventing

adverse impacts to vegetation and soil resources in those areas and limiting the introduction of

INNS by grazing animals.

Alternative A does not provide for a forage reserve for livestock grazing so reclamation of surface

disturbance would be more difficult if grazed by livestock which increases the risk of INNS spread.

Recreation-related adverse impacts can contribute to the introduction and spread of INNS. INNS

seed and propagules can be introduced from authorized group activities, such as the repeated use

of undeveloped campsites near waterbodies and cross-country mechanized travel. Alternative

A closes 5,923 acres to motorized vehicle use. Seasonal restrictions on 111,002 acres would be

likely to beneficially impact the INNS program, because soils will be protected during times of the

year when damage to vegetation could make the area more vulnerable to INNS spread. Alternative

A closes 14,729 acres to over-snow vehicle use. However, the remaining lands (virtually all of the

planning area) are open without any minimum snow-depth requirements, resulting in the potential

for adverse impacts to vegetation and secondary adverse impacts to the INNS program.

4.4.3.3.2.4. Special Designations

Alternative A also manages waterways identified in an inventory as eligible for inclusion in

the NWSRS, which limits surface disturbance within 1⁄4 mile of those waterways. Like any

avoidance of surface disturbance, this would result in direct beneficial impacts to the INNS

program, although the limited number of acres associated with this management would result in

only moderate beneficial impacts.

Alternative A manages 119,622 acres of ACECs as ROW avoidance areas. This management

has historically precluded major ROWs and thus avoided the adverse impacts to the INNS

program associated with surface disturbance. While ACEC management also introduces the

requirement for a Plan of Operations for locatable mineral actions, which would help prevent

undue or unnecessary degradation, it will not stop mineral-related surface disturbance, a vector

for INNS introduction and spread.

4.4.3.3.3. Alternative B

4.4.3.3.3.1. Program Management

Under Alternative B, the Authorized Officer may require that livestock be flushed for weeds

(fed certified weed-free forage) for 72 hours before livestock is allowed to move onto

BLM-administered lands. The intent of this short-term quarantine measure is to keep livestock

from moving off private lands infested with Wyoming Declared Weeds onto BLM-administered

lands. This alternative would put BLM-administered lands at lower risk of infestation from this

vector. This would require that livestock operators obtain certified weed-free forage, or have

their own forage crops certified by the appropriate county weed and pest control district. This

alternative will help coordination between the Lander Field Office and the Casper Field Office,

because the Casper Field Office adopted this specific management action in its RMP and EIS.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 809

There is no similar requirement under Alternative A, so management under Alternative B is

more beneficial to the INNS program.

Under Alternative B, the Lander Field Office will monitor and determine if authorized activities

are contributing to the spread of INNS. If authorized activities are creating an adverse impact

due to the spread of INNS, the Lander Field Office will adjust the terms of the authorization to

aid in the control of INNS. This would provide a greater beneficial impact to INNS management

than Alternative A, because all activities identified as contributing to the spread of INNS would

require adjustments to authorized terms, rather than making adjustments on a case-by-case basis.

4.4.3.3.3.2. Resources

Management actions under Alternative B prohibit soil-disturbing activities in areas with LRP soils,

which would result in more beneficial impacts to the INNS program than Alternative A. The risk

of reclamation failure and INNS invasion is greatest on LRP soils, and Alternative B restrictions

would provide the greatest protection and help ensure that erosion would be kept to natural rates.

This alternative eliminates the risk of land reclamation failure associated with mineral and realty

actions by prohibiting these activities on LRP soils. There would still be a potential for INNS to

become established on LRP soils from other activities, such as range improvement projects and

livestock grazing. However, soils would remain more resistant to INNS infestation than under

Alternative A in the absence of development related to mineral and realty actions.

Slopes in excess of 15 percent are closed to surface-disturbing activities under Alternative B, an

increase of 231,325 acres over Alternative A. The potential for erosion becomes greater on slopes

in excess of 15 percent than on less steep slopes. Steeper slopes undergo accelerated erosion

and are more difficult to stabilize and reclaim, becoming suitable sites for weed infestations.

Therefore, additional limitations under Alternative B would result in moderately more beneficial

impacts than Alternative A.

Management actions for water resources under Alternative B limit surface disturbance on more

acres than Alternative A. This would beneficially impact the INNS program, but cannot be

quantified because not all of the areas have been mapped and would have to be considered on

a case-by-case basis.

While Alternative A relies on label precautions and INNS treatment application restrictions near

water to protect surface water and groundwater from contamination, Alternative B prohibits

pesticide use in identified aquifer recharge areas and any areas underlain by a sole source aquifer

or wellhead protection area. Alternative B water management would adversely impact INNS

management in areas of infestation, like the Lander Slope, by placing restrictions on pesticide use

beyond those specified by the EPA. Not treating new, small infestations of deep-rooted perennials

on the Wyoming Declared Weed list for eradication risks permanently losing acreage of livestock

forage and wildlife habitat and increasing the fire hazard from heavy weed infestations. The U.S.

EPA regulates the conditions of safe use for all pesticides by specific statutory authority using the

best available science to protect human health and the environment. The risk of damage to the

environment from INNS is greater than the risk from properly applied pesticides.

Alternative B manages 5,490 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics as non-WSA land

with wilderness characteristics to protect their wilderness character, which includes prohibiting

motorized and mechanized travel. This would help to protect these lands from weed infestations.

Alternative A does not designate special management for these lands, but because of the

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management
810 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

limited number of acres involved, Alternative B would be only moderately more beneficial

than Alternative A.

Alternative B includes full suppression of fire and authorizes soil disturbance associated with

suppression activities within limited areas, in accordance with an approved FMP. This would

create surface disturbance in the areas of full suppression, providing suitable conditions for

INNS invasion. However, this management approach would reduce the risk of INNS invasion

in small, non-landscape-level wildfire situations by reducing impacts from heavy fire-fighting

equipment. As vegetation communities return to a more natural fire frequency cycle, the risk

of INNS establishment following wildfire would decrease, resulting in healthier herbaceous

communities. While there is not enough information to quantify the difference, Alternative

B would result in more beneficial impacts than Alternative A because of the reduced surface

disturbance associated with full suppression.

Under Alternative B, short-term adverse impacts from INNS due to timber harvesting activities,

similar to those described under Alternative A, would accrue as forest areas are managed

according to prescriptions that will be developed in forest management plans for the Green

Mountain, South Pass, Lander Slope, and Dubois Primary Forest Resource areas (Map 47).

Alternative B prohibits clear-cutting. Natural forest processes would be relied on to achieve

suitable forest health, with traditional silviculture techniques applied when natural forest

processes fail. This would be more beneficial to the INNS program than Alternative A because it

would be less likely to result in surface disturbance, although the low demand for forest products

makes this only a minor beneficial impact to the INNS program under either alternative. The

Alternative B prohibition on clear-cuts increases the potential for large, landscape-level wildfire.

Under Alternative B, the result of landscape-level wildfire could increase erosion and the potential

for INNS infestation compared to Alternative A, where small clear-cuts could be strategically

located to act as fire breaks against landscape-level wildfires. Under either alternative, there

would be limited demand for forest products, so the difference in impacts between the two

alternatives would likely to be minor.

Riparian-wetland resources management under Alternative B closes additional acres to surface

disturbance through a larger active buffer. This wide buffer and moderate restrictions on surface

use would help reduce the risk of INNS invasion due to surface disturbance. Reductions in

surface-disturbing activities would have an indirect beneficial impact on the control of INNS.

Alternative B prohibits surface disturbance near riparian-wetland areas on approximately two and

one-half time the acres than Alternative A.

Alternative B implements a passive-management-oriented, non-project approach for correcting

identified PFC and/or Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangeland deficiencies (see the Livestock

Grazing Management section). This more passive management can work well on low slopes

without compacted soils in moist locations; recovery of these areas can be realized in the short

to long term. However, simply closing an eroding road without alleviating soil compaction and

reseeding can be successful in some cases and very unsuccessful in others, leading to more

adverse impacts from INNS invasion. The success of this approach depends on the slope, runoff,

and soil material present. This is unlike Alternative A, which on a case-by-case basis uses

management and projects to rehabilitate or enhance riparian zones and wetland resources that can

yield desirable results sooner, depending on the level of degradation at the site.

Management actions under Alternative B designed to protect wildlife and special status species

habitat from the impacts of surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities also serve

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 811

to protect against INNS invasion. This alternative restricts and prohibits surface-disturbing

activities to a much greater degree than Alternative A. In greater sage-grouse nesting areas,

surface-disturbing activities are highly restricted on 1,339,609 acres, somewhat more than

Alternative A. While this is only a timing restriction it does limit surface disturbance during a

time that is ideal for the introduction of INNS in soils that are wet in the spring. Buffers around

occupied greater sage-grouse leks prohibit surface-disturbing activities on 93,410 acres of BLM

surface acres, substantially more than Alternative A.

Alternative B would systematically inventory and close unnecessary roads and trails and prescribe

rehabilitation for them to benefit wildlife habitat. Comparatively, Alternative A closes and

reclaims unnecessary roads and old mineral exploration trails on a case-by-case basis. Alternative

B prohibits new water development projects in big game crucial winter range and parturition

areas. In general, limitations on surface disturbance under Alternative B to improve wildlife and

special status wildlife habitat would result in major beneficial impacts to the INNS program

compared to Alternative A.

Special status species management provisions for this alternative prohibit chemical treatments

within 1⁄4 mile of BLM sensitive plant species habitat, unless the purpose is to protect the special

status plant species. Also, buffers can be increased to protect plant populations on a case-by-case

basis. This management could result in an increase of INNS that could ultimately out perform

special status plants or adversely alter habitat for special status species. In comparison, Alternative

A allows chemical treatment of vegetation in sensitive species habitat on a case-by-case basis,

which could be a more effective way to remove weed threats to special status species, depending

on the specific weed species involved.

Alternative B proposes the construction/upgrade of up to three wild-horse viewing loop roads.

These roads would be built in accordance with BLM Manual 9113 design specifications and

surfaced with crushed rock or asphalt. Short- and long-term adverse impacts would include

increased risk of INNS invasion in the road ditches due to construction and increases in traffic.

Increased monitoring would be necessary for these routes.

Management prescriptions under Alternative B designed to protect cultural, paleontological, and

visual resources from the impacts of surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities would

also protect against INNS invasion. Generally, the management of heritage and visual resources

under Alternative B would provide more secondary protections for resisting INNS invasion

than Alternative A.

4.4.3.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Surface-disturbing activities associated with mineral development expose soils to increased risk

of INNS invasion in both the short term and long term. For projected figures of disturbance

under Alternative B, see Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions

in the Lander Planning Area” (p. 45). Alternative B decreases the amount and severity of

surface disturbance related to mineral development (salable, leasable, and locatable minerals;

and geothermal leasing) compared to Alternative A, which would be expected to result in a

corresponding decrease in risk of INNS invasion.

Alternative B opens 41,372 acres for wind-energy development; this is approximately only a of

the acreage Alternative A offers on a case-by-case basis. Of these areas, only 867 acres have

wind-energy potential. Accordingly, Alternative B would be unlikely to have any industrial scale

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management
812 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

wind-energy development. This would be a major beneficial impact to INNS in comparison to

Alternative A. Alternative B's wind-energy development restrictions would beneficially the

INNS program in comparison to Alternative A.

ROW development under Alternative B would result in approximately 7,590 acres of short-term

surface disturbance and 125 acres of long-term surface disturbance. This is much less adverse

than Alternative A, although some of the long-term disturbance in Alternative B would not

necessarily lead to INNS because it is associated with paving roads or constructing facilities.

Under Alternative B, there are 315,219 acres of ROW avoidance areas (approximately five times

more than Alternative A) and 1,919,029 acres (approximately 9.3 times more than Alternative A)

of ROW exclusion areas. The far more limited ROW program under Alternative B would result

in major beneficial impacts to the INNS program compared to Alternative A.

Alternative B manages 12,839 more acres as closed to livestock grazing in comparison to

Alternative A. The impacts of concentrated herbivory are identified in Impacts Common to All

Alternatives. These adverse impacts would be reduced in the areas that are closed to livestock

grazing in Alternative B. Alternative B prohibits the placement of salt and mineral supplements in

far more areas than Alternative A with beneficial impacts to INNS by limiting vegetation loss.

Furthermore, Alternative B emphasizes the use of non-structural grazing management to achieve

or maintain Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. New range improvements would

not be allowed that would result in adverse impacts to other resources. This approach would

likely require a reduction in stocking rates and the use of alternative grazing strategies, such as

herding, to prevent livestock concentrations from creating suitable conditions for INNS invasion.

In addition, not only would there be no new surface disturbance, range improvement projects

would emphasize vegetation treatments, increasing the acres treated from 10,000 acres over the

life of the plan to 30,000. If a forage reserve were established, as authorized under Alternative

B, reclamation success could be improved with beneficial impacts to the INNS program. The

beneficial impacts to INNS management from livestock grazing management under Alternative B

would be major compared to Alternative A.

The adverse impacts of recreation-related travel are described under Alternative A. Alternative

B closes 71,761 acres to motorized vehicle travel, approximately 12 times more acres than

Alternative A. Under Alternative B, approximately 116,805 acres are seasonally closed to

motorized vehicle travel, somewhat more than under Alternative A. To the extent that seasonal

closures protect vegetation during muddy seasons, there would be less vegetation disturbed,

a beneficial impact to the INNS program. Alternative B closes approximately 181,173 acres

to over-snow vehicle use, approximately 12 times more than Alternative A, and limits travel

when there are less than 12 inches of snow, which would limit adverse impacts to vegetation

and, indirectly, result in beneficial impacts to the INNS program. With more restrictions on

travel, there would be fewer chances for INNS seed and propagule introduction and less surface

disturbance to create favorable conditions for INNS germination.

4.4.3.3.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative B management associated with Congressionally Designated Trails would result in

major beneficial impacts to INNS management compared to Alternative A because Alternative

B places far more restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. It is not possible to quantify the

acres that would not be disturbed under Alternative B because trails management is based on the

trail's visual and historical setting. However, the restrictions are extensive under Alternative B

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 813

and would limit the kinds of disturbances (surface disturbance and new roads) that are the major

vectors for INNS spread.

Alternative B manages all NWSRS-eligible waterways as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS,

while Alternative A recommends that interim management continue for the nine NWSRS-eligible

waterways. Managing the Sweetwater River Unit to maintain its NWSRS suitability would

not provide additional beneficial impacts because it is part of a WSA with more restrictive

management. In the other waterways, while theoretically there would be a beneficial impact to the

INNS program from WSR suitability management under Alternative B, there is little demand for

surface-disturbing activities in these areas, so there would be no real difference in impacts to the

INNS program between alternatives A and B.

Alternative B designates 1,492,990 acres as ACECs and prohibits or minimizes surface

disturbance in these areas. This is approximately 12.5 times the acreage protected under

Alternative A. However, a large portion of these acres overlap with other restrictions so the acres

of protection analyzed here are not additive.

4.4.3.3.4. Alternative C

4.4.3.3.4.1. Program Management

INNS program management under Alternative C is the same as under Alternative A. As described

above, Alternative B includes more proactive management, such as cattle flushing and adjusting

terms and conditions of authorized activities, to help control INNS. Therefore, alternatives A and

C would result in less beneficial impact to INNS management than Alternative B.

4.4.3.3.4.2. Resources

Alternative C soils, water, and fire program management are similar to that under Alternative

A. Like Alternative A, Alternative C avoids surface-disturbing activities on slopes more than

25 percent with the same beneficial impacts to the INNS program. This is much less restrictive

than Alternative B, which avoids surface-disturbing activities on slopes more than 15 percent, the

avoidance requirement with the highest level of restrictions. Impacts to the INNS program from

soils management under Alternative C would be very similar to impacts under Alternative A, and

more than moderately less beneficial than under Alternative B.

Alternative C management of forest product sales is generally the same as Alternative A, but less

restrictive and with more potential for adverse impacts to the INNS program than Alternative B.

Alternative C prescriptions that allow for large clear-cuts would result in more short-term adverse

impacts from the risk of INNS invasion until logged sites could grow native vegetative cover that

can resist INNS invasion. Alternative C would result in the greatest long-term adverse impacts of

INNS invasion in any portions of large clear-cuts that lose soil fertility and do not rehabilitate

in the short term. However, because of the lower demand for forest products, differences in

impacts among the alternatives would be minor.

Alternative C riparian-wetland management actions are very similar to Alternative A, with similar

moderate beneficial impacts.

Alternative C places the fewest restrictions on surface-disturbing activities based on wildlife and

special status species concerns. Therefore, Alternative C would be expected to result in a greater

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management
814 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

degree of development in critical wildlife habitats, and in turn result in the highest potential for

INNS introduction and establishment compared to the other alternatives. In greater sage-grouse

nesting areas, Alternative C prohibits surface-disturbing activities the same as Alternative A.

Alternative C has the same nesting stipulations as Alternative A, which is less beneficial to soils

and thus INNS management during a vulnerable season. Alternative C management of wildlife

resources does not close and reclaim unnecessary roads and old mineral exploration trails, unlike

Alternative A, which does on a case-by-case basis, and Alternative B, which requires more active

identification and rehabilitation of redundant and hazardous roads. Addressing these road-related

erosion problems through rehabilitation denies INNS preferred germination sites.

Alternatives A and C provide for greater control of INNS species compared to Alternative B

because chemical (pesticide) use is not limited. The impact of this different management would

be minor because of the limited mapped acres of special status plant species.

Management prescriptions under Alternative C designed to protect cultural, paleontological, and

visual resources from the impacts of surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities also

protect against adverse impacts associated with INNS introduction and infestation. Generally,

Alternative C would provide the least secondary protections for resisting INNS invasion compared

to alternatives A and B, which would provide the most protection for resisting INNS invasion.

Alternative C includes very limited restrictions on surface disturbance to protect these resources

(particularly visual resources), so more surface disturbance would be likely under Alternative C,

with major adverse impacts to the INNS program.

4.4.3.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Surface-disturbing activities associated with mineral development expose areas to increased risk

of INNS introduction and infestation. For potential short- and long-term acres affected and acres

of disturbance under Alternative C, see Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use

Decisions in the Lander Planning Area” (p. 45). Alternative C increases the amount and severity

of surface disturbance related to all mineral development (locatable, leasable and mineral material

disposals) compared to alternatives A and B, which would be expected to result in an increase in

risk of INNS invasion, a major adverse impact.

Alternative C opens more acres with wind-energy potential to wind-energy development and

has fewer acres of avoidance or exclusion. It is assumed that there would be 108,000 acres of

short-term disturbance and 48,000 acres of long-term disturbance, the most of any alternative.

This alternative would have adverse impacts as the development would be spread across 400 or

more sections.

Alternative C designates future major ROWs in a 3 mile-wide corridor that follows existing

ROWs totaling approximately 660,908 acres in designated corridors. Surface disturbance for

ROWs (other than on-lease oil and gas and wind-energy development) would be 12,216 acres of

short-term disturbance and 703 acres of long-term disturbance or slightly more than Alternative

A. Alternative C excludes ROWs on 147,053 acres thus protecting far fewer acres from INNS

disturbances in comparison to Alternative B. Alternative C manages 11,714 acres as ROW

avoidance areas. INNS can still become established in ROW exclusion and avoidance areas

by means of livestock, wildlife, and range improvement projects, among others. Alternative

C ROW management is likely to have at least moderately more adverse impacts than either

Alternative A or B.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 815

Like Alternative A, Alternative C opens the planning area to livestock grazing with very similar

management. Alternative C calls for moderate grazing (41 to 60 percent) rather than setting

utilization levels on a case-by-case basis, as does Alternative A, or by prescribing light (20

to 40 percent) utilization levels as does Alternative B. Moderate utilization would necessarily

require more monitoring and leave less room for error than light utilization, and would present

a risk of more adverse impacts to plant communities, which can favor INNS invasion. The

acres open to grazing under this alternative and its utilization levels (moderate) are the same as

Alternative A. Alternative C would have 1,996 acres of long-term surface disturbance associated

with range development projects. Alternative C management of the placement of salt and mineral

supplements is the same as Alternative A; however, unlike Alternative A, Alternative C uses salt

and mineral supplements as a tool to maximize forage use. Like Alternative A, the development

of range infrastructure would limit vegetation treatments to approximately 10,000 acres over

twenty years or 1/3 the acres of treatment under Alternative B. Alternative C would result in the

greatest adverse impacts to vegetation from livestock grazing compared to the other alternatives,

and consequently would result in the greatest adverse impacts from INNS invasion.

Alternative C closes 5,472 acres to motorized vehicle travel, more closely resembling Alternative

A than Alternative B in the beneficial impacts to the INNS program. Alternative D includes

seasonal closures similar to Alternative A, but less than Alternative B. Seasonal closures

designed to benefit wildlife can also benefit vegetation by reducing the likelihood of INNS

spread. Alternative C is similar to Alternative B in its management of over-the-snow vehicles by

requiring motorized vehicles to stay on roads unless there are at least 12 inches of snow, which

would beneficially impact vegetation and, therefore, beneficially impact INNS management.

4.4.3.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C management of Congressionally Designated Trails restricts surface disturbance

on the fewest acres of any alternative. Compared to Alternative B, Alternative C allows greater

development outside 1⁄4 mile of trails and would have the potential to result in major adverse

impacts to the INNS program.

Alternative C does not recommend any NWSRS-eligible waterway segments as suitable for

inclusion in the NWSRS. This would result in fewer protections against surface-disturbing

activities and INNS invasion than alternatives A and B.

Alternative C does not designate any ACECs. The alternative manages surface-disturbing

activities with standard stipulations, which is the least restrictive to surface-disturbing activities

of all the alternatives and provides the least protection against the risk of INNS introduction.

Standard stipulations would provide some level of protection against the potential infestation of

INNS; however, Alternative C standard stipulations would do little to hinder the spread of INNS

compared to Alternative B, with resulting major adverse impacts. Alternative C would also result

in fewer beneficial impacts to INNS management than Alternative A.

4.4.3.3.5. Alternative D

4.4.3.3.5.1. Program Management

INNS program management under Alternative D is generally the same as under Alternative B,

with Required Design Features and selected BMPs applied as COAs. However, Alternative

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management
816 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

D includes fewer restrictions on surface disturbance than Alternative B, which would make

the beneficial impacts under Alternative D moderately to substantially less than Alternative B.

Alternative D better prevents the introduction and spread of INNS than alternatives A and C.

4.4.3.3.5.2. Resources

Soils and water program management under Alternative D is similar to that under Alternative A

in terms of slope and LRP. Impacts under this alternative would be expected to be very similar to

those described for Alternative A and less than those under Alternative C.

Alternative D includes full suppression of fire based on a consideration of other resources,

especially in sagebrush areas. This management would be more likely to lead to INNS spread than

Alternative B, where soil disturbance associated with suppression activities occurs. Alternative D

would result in more acres of disturbance from fire suppression activities than Alternative B.

Alternative D management of forest product sales allows all silvicultural management techniques

wherever they are deemed suitable. This would be a more beneficial approach to INNS

management than any of the other alternatives because it accounts for site-specific considerations

and does not impose artificial limits. This alternative avoids the potential for INNS expansion

into clear-cut areas that occurs under alternatives A and C, but would provide more management

flexibility than Alternative B. Alternative D also allows management flexibility to address

beetle-killed trees in parts of the planning area and allows the BLM to partner with other land

managers, such as the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the Shoshone National Forest. This

management can also be used strategically, as funds permit, to perform fuels treatments that

would help prevent landscape-level fires. However, the low demand for forest products would

make the importance of differences in impacts among the alternatives minor to moderate. The

application of Required Design Features, including silviculture BMPs as COAs, would help to

prevent INNS spread.

Riparian-wetland management actions under Alternative D are the same as those under Alternative

A, which would afford native plant communities some short- and long-term protection from

potential INNS introduction and infestation, but not as much protection as Alternative B, which

closes a much larger buffer (125,403 more acres). Alternative D allows the use of infrastructure

projects to make progress toward PFC and Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, but

balances adverse impacts to resources. Additional information regarding livestock grazing

management impacts to INNS is provided below under that section.

Alternative D places more restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of

wildlife and special status species than alternatives A and C, but not as many as Alternative B.

Accordingly, adverse impacts under Alternative D from INNS establishment and spread would be

less than those under alternatives A and C, but more than those under Alternative B although

limits on surface disturbance through the use of Required Design Features would reduce the

adverse impacts. Restrictions on surface disturbance due to special status species would limit the

amount of bare ground allowed, particularly in the greater sage-grouse Core Area, and therefore

would decrease potential locations for INNS establishment. The Alternative D closure of the

Dubois area to surface-disturbing activities (e.g., oil and gas development, phosphate leasing,

mineral materials disposals, and major ROWs to protect wildlife) would reduce the potential for

INNS spread in the area by reducing surface disturbance. However, the Dubois area has not

historically been an area of intensive mineral development, so beneficial impacts to the INNS

program could be minor.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 817

Like Alternative B, Alternative D closes and reclaims redundant and hazardous roads and

old mineral exploration trails and has greater sage-grouse objectives for road reclamation.

Addressing these road-related erosion problems through rehabilitation would deny INNS

preferred germination sites and therefore would result in more beneficial impacts to INNS

management than Alternative A, which closes and reclaims redundant and hazardous roads and

old mineral exploration trails on a case-by-case basis. Alternative C provides the least protection

for special status species, alternatives A and D provide a mid-level of protection, and Alternative

B provides the most protection to special status species and by imposing the most restrictive

limits for surface-disturbing impacts.

Alternative D authorizes chemical (pesticide) treatments within identified sensitive species

plant habitat if it would benefit the special status plants. This is unlike Alternative B, which

prohibits chemical treatments within 1⁄4 mile of BLM sensitive plant species habitat, unless the

purpose is to protect the special status plant species. Alternative D management could reduce the

likelihood of INNS, which could ultimately out perform special status plants or adversely alter

habitat for special status species. Alternative A allows chemical treatment of vegetation within

sensitive species habitat on a case-by-case basis. Alternatives A, B, and C are very similar,

because all weed control is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. To safeguard sensitive species

populations against accidental pesticide treatment, the Fremont County Weed & Pest Control

District has information about sensitive plant populations and boundaries in the planning area

in their Geographic Information System (GIS), which is readily available to field work crews.

Alternative D provides for the greatest control of INNS followed by alternatives A and C and

finally Alternative B which has the least flexibility for treatment of INNS.

Management prescriptions under Alternative D designed to protect cultural, paleontological, and

visual resources from the impacts of surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities also

protect against adverse impacts associated with INNS introduction and infestation. Generally,

this alternative provides the second best management (limiting surface-disturbing activities) for

resisting INNS invasion compared to Alternative B, but more than Alternative A or C.

4.4.3.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Surface-disturbing activities associated with mineral development expose areas to increased risk

of INNS introduction and infestation. For potential short-term and long-term acres affected and

acres of disturbance under Alternative D, see Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed

Land Use Decisions in the Lander Planning Area” (p. 45). Alternative D would decrease the

amount and severity of surface disturbance related to mineral development (locatables, leasables,

and mineral material disposals) compared to Alternative A, and would decrease them substantially

compared to Alternative C but less than Alternative B. The NSO stipulations applied to the

high-resource value areas in Dubois and the Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City areas and the

Required Design Features would beneficially impact the INNS program.

Management under Alternative D of industrial wind-energy development is similar to that under

Alternative B, and the impacts to the INNS program are likely to be the same.

Alternative D assumes that 9,894 acres would have short-term disturbance associated with ROW

(other than oil and gas on-lease and wind-energy development). Alternative D confines major

ROWs to designated corridors and designates more corridors than Alternative B; most other

areas are avoided with avoidance criteria. These designated corridors are fewer and narrower

under Alternative D than under Alternative C but only somewhat. This would limit surface

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management
818 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

disturbance through many areas of resource concern and limit this potential vector for INNS

spread, but less than under Alternative B. However, with more designated corridors available,

it is possible that any one corridor will be used less frequently, with a longer period of rest for

reclamation objectives to be met.

Alternative D manages 7,566 acres as closed to livestock grazing, slightly less than Alternative B

and slightly more than alternatives A and C. Alternative D livestock grazing management is less

restrictive than Alternative B because Alternative D allows moderate utilization levels. Limiting

range infrastructure projects to when part of a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy would result in

fewer adverse impacts to the INNS program than alternatives A and C. Alternative D would

likely make more rapid progress towards rangeland health than Alternative B but this could be

offset by the additional surface disturbance associated with the infrastructure. Alternative D will

disturb 847 new acres whereas Alternative B will likely disturb little to none. Like alternatives A

and C, Alternative D would treat 10,000 acres or 1/3 that of Alternative B. However, in cases

where livestock use would be continuous or occur annually during the critical growing season for

uplands or during the riparian-wetland hot seasons, light utilization levels could be necessary.

Utilization levels would be based on the results of monitoring data. Under Alternative D, forage

requirements for big game herd objectives are considered when determining stocking rates for

livestock and wild horses. Because healthy herbaceous communities are more resistant to INNS

infestation, moderate livestock grazing in uplands and riparian-wetland systems would result

in beneficial impacts by reducing over utilization and the potential for INNS establishment as

herbaceous communities return to a stable state. Alternative D restricts the placement of salt and

mineral supplements similar to Alternative B, which would result in beneficial impacts to INNS

management similar to those under Alternative B. While these beneficial impacts would be more

pronounced under Alternative D than under Alternative A, and exceed those under Alternative C,

they would not be as widespread or effective as beneficial impacts under Alternative B. Required

Design Features would reduce the adverse impacts associated with livestock grazing and range

infrastructure.

Roads and trails are prime vectors for INNS invasion and the less acreage open to motorized

vehicle travel the less chance there would be for the introduction of INNS. Alternative D closes

26,357 acres to motorized vehicle travel, far less than Alternative B but similar to Alternative

A. Alternative D includes seasonal closures similar to Alternative A but less than Alternative B.

Seasonal closures for wildlife management would also have beneficial impacts on vegetation and,

therefore, reduce the likelihood of INNS spread. Alternative D is similar to Alternative B in its

management of over-snow vehicle travel, as it requires motorized vehicles to stay on roads unless

there are at least 12 inches of snow; this would beneficially impact vegetation and, therefore, have

a beneficial impact INNS management. The Required Design Features for surface disturbance,

which limits the footprint and extent of vegetation removal, would reduce the adverse impacts

associated with development. Mandated impoundment pond designs, where authorized, would

limit the spread of WNV, although not to the extent that would occur under Alternative B.

4.4.3.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative D management of Congressionally Designated Trails in the NTMC would result in

more beneficial impacts to INNS management than alternatives A and C, because Alternative

D includes more restrictions on surface disturbance over a larger area. However, Alternative D

would result in substantially fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B, because Alternative D

closes less area to surface-disturbing activities.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Invasive Species and Pest Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 819

Alternative D protects fewer NWSRS-eligible waterway segments by managing them as suitable

for inclusion in the NWSRS than Alternative B, but this would result in only a marginally less

beneficial impact to INNS management because many of the segments are protected by other

management (e.g., ACEC or WSA designation). Moreover, it is not clear that there would be

any real demand for surface-disturbing activities in these areas, so there might be only minor

differences in impacts among alternatives A, B, and D. The Alternative C approach of not

recommending any NWSRS-eligible waterway segments as suitable could result in more adverse

impacts because of the lack of restrictions associated with special designations realized under the

other alternatives. Two of these units are contained in areas that are withdrawn from locatable

mineral entry and NSO for oil and gas for the benefit of other resources.

Alternative D designates 243,838 acres of ACECs, which in turn have limits on surface

disturbance. As discussed above, ACEC designation requires a Plan of Operations for locatable

mineral activities regardless of disturbance acreage, which includes a weed management plan.

This would beneficially impact INNS management, although not to the extent of the withdrawals

proposed under Alternative B. More of the ACECs in Alternative D are withdrawn from locatable

mineral entry than under Alternative A.

4.4.4. Riparian-Wetland Resources

Impacts to riparian-wetland resources occur when something alters the physical, chemical, or

biological components of the ecosystem. Actions that contribute to the decline in abundance,

distribution, or functionality of riparian-wetland resources are considered adverse impacts.

Conversely, beneficial impacts result from management actions that protect or restore

riparian-wetland resources in the planning area.

Direct impacts to riparian-wetland resources result from disturbing vegetation or the ground

surface in these communities. Indirect impacts result from actions in a watershed that cause a

change in riparian-wetland functionality (e.g., increased rates of sediment loading or changes in

hydrology), a change in water chemistry, or spread of INNS.

4.4.4.1. Summary of Impacts

Major adverse impacts to riparian-wetland resources arise from surface disturbance associated

with mineral resources development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and livestock

grazing. Impacts from wildlife and wild horses are more localized and site specific than the broad

impacts from livestock grazing. Alternative C would result in the greatest projected total surface

disturbance, followed by Alternative D, Alternative A and then Alternative B. Alternative B

would result in the greatest beneficial impact to riparian-wetland resources by imposing more

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities close to riparian-wetlands resources and by instituting

more beneficial proactive management actions, such as watershed improvement projects.

Overall, Alternative B would result in the fewest adverse impacts to riparian-wetland resources

and Alternative C would result in the most. Alternative D has moderate beneficial impacts to

riparian-wetland resources over alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B.

4.4.4.2. Methods and Assumptions

Evaluating potential impacts to riparian-wetland areas caused by changes in functionality or

INNS establishment focuses on resource management actions that (1) cause surface disturbances

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources
820 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

or limit impacts from surface disturbances and (2) are substantially different among the proposed

alternatives. Estimates of projected surface disturbances are used as the primary metric for

determining the relative level of potential indirect impact to riparian-wetland areas.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Where appropriate actions have been applied following rangeland health assessments,

riparian-wetland plant communities are functioning properly or are in the process of achieving

PFC.

● Surface disturbances generally increase the potential for accelerated sediment loading to

streams.

● Surface disturbances generally increase surface runoff to streams due to an increase in

impervious surface, changes in water routing, and loss of vegetation.

● Surface disturbance, transportation networks, ungulate use, and recreation increase the

likelihood of INNS introduction and spread in an area.

● The greater the amount of surface disturbance in a watershed, the greater the probability

that excess surface runoff and sediment will enter the stream and contribute to the loss

of riparian-wetland functionality.

● Placing salt and mineral supplements outside riparian-wetland communities is a tool that can

reduce livestock use of riparian-wetland areas.

● Surface runoff to streams generally increases as livestock stocking rates increase. This is not a

linear relationship. For example, low stocking rates typically result in no measurable impact

to surface runoff, moderate stocking rates typically result in a negligible impact to surface

runoff, high stocking rates result in a measurable impact to surface runoff, and consecutive

years of high stocking rates have the highest potential for increasing surface runoff to streams.

● Livestock use is typically disproportionately higher in riparian-wetland communities than

in upland communities. Improper livestock grazing management can adversely impact

riparian-wetland communities throughout the year, but generally there are more impacts in

spring and early summer when soils are wet and, therefore, more vulnerable to compaction,

and stream banks are more vulnerable to sloughing. Livestock, especially cattle, tend to

congregate in these communities during the hot season (mid through late summer). While

stocking rates for an allotment or pasture might be low to moderate, the utilization levels in

riparian-wetland areas can be high.

● Riparian-wetland areas are managed to meet PFC and Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands. Meeting these standards depends primarily on management of grazing practices

and ground-disturbing activities. Riparian-wetland areas are evaluated during Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangeland assessments. Approximately 5 percent of the public

land in the planning area is evaluated annually for rangeland health. The BLM assesses

riparian-wetland sites on BLM-administered land using the PFC method. The BLM manages

livestock and implements rangeland improvement projects to endeavor to bring locations not

in PFC into PFC, where conditions allow.

● Livestock numbers are managed on an annual basis based on livestock permittees operations,

available forage, and permitted seasons of use.

● Wildlife can adversely impact riparian-wetland areas, depending on the numbers and types of

wildlife and when the use occurs; however, impacts from wildlife are more localized and site

specific and are not widespread in the planning area.

● All riparian-wetland areas are managed toward PFC. Management toward desired plant

community is assumed to exceed the requirements of managing toward PFC.

● Management actions for soil resources will help minimize soil erosion, and sediment, salt,

and nutrient loading in waterbodies.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 821

● Stream channel and land health conditions can degrade quite rapidly. Recovery is often a

much slower process. It is generally more efficient to prevent degradation than to recover

a degraded system.

4.4.4.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.4.4.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts to riparian-wetland resources would be similar, but the intensity of impacts would vary

by alternative.

Implementing any of the alternatives could result in direct and indirect impacts. Because

riparian-wetland areas are limited in the planning area and often the most productive lands,

humans, livestock, wild horses, and wildlife disproportionately impact these resources compared

to the same types and extent of actions in upland areas. Whenever possible, the alternatives

generally avoid or minimize direct adverse impacts to riparian-wetland. Impacts from projects

or uses that involve riparian-wetland areas are minimized through the application of BMPs. In

addition, the BLM manages lotic (running water) and lentic (standing water) riparian-wetland

areas to meet PFC and Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Under all the alternatives the BLM uses wildland fires to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and

to reduce hazardous fuels. However, it is likely that several resource objectives throughout the

planning area will require the use of full suppression tactics in most cases. The loss of vegetative

cover from both wildland fires and prescribed fires increases runoff and sediment to streams and

other waterbodies in the short term. Storm events following a fire can overwhelm downstream

waterbodies by contributing excessive amounts of sediment, large woody debris, and water to the

system in a short period. Fires that burn more intensely result in a greater adverse impact to the

watershed. Fires of the appropriate intensity generate a vegetation response that could result in

beneficial impacts to a watershed by helping to recharge water tables and increasing the amount

of herbaceous cover, thereby improving livestock, wild-horse, and wildlife distribution and

decreasing erosion. As described in the fire and fuels analysis, greater sage-grouse management in

Core Area with less than 12 inches of annual precipitation (a category that includes 70 percent of

the planning area) does not utilize prescribed fire absent very limited exceptions. Full suppression

of wildfire will occur in Core Area in all alternatives.

Direct adverse impacts to riparian-wetland resources can result from wildlife, livestock,

wild-horse grazing, and linear disturbances such as roads and pipelines. The alternatives stipulate

BMPs to address these impacts. These BMPs are particularly important for livestock management.

All alternatives stipulate varying riparian buffers to reduce impacts to riparian-wetlands.

Locatable mineral activities are not subject to riparian buffer stipulations. Produced water

discharge is permitted under all alternatives by the Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (WYPDES). Impacts caused by wildlife and wild horses are not specifically managed but

are generally minor.

Riparian-wetlands typically experience the highest adverse impacts during the hot summer

seasons (June 15 through September 15, historically) when livestock tend to loiter and select

these areas for the higher-quality forage, open water, and thermal cover they provide. If

improperly managed, livestock can directly impact bank stability in lotic systems, affect water

quality, limit the growth and vigor of riparian-wetland herbaceous communities, and create

hummocking leading to soil compaction. Riparian-wetland soils are sensitive to hummocking

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources
822 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and compaction, which decreases water infiltration rates and water-holding capacity. Properly

functioning riparian-wetland zones are often comprised of a diverse mix of woody and herbaceous

riparian-wetland species. These communities are highly dependent on slope, aspect, soil type,

and ecological site and can be dominated by either herbaceous species, woody species, or

both. Woody species often encountered in riparian-wetland areas include cottonwood, willow,

waterbirch, and alder.

In some parts of the planning area, aspen is also a component of riparian-wetland areas. The

herbaceous component associated with properly functioning riparian-wetland areas is often

comprised of sedges, tufted hairgrass, rushes, and bulrushes. Heavy use of these systems

suppresses the reproduction of these riparian-wetland-obligate species and can lead to a shift

to a more grazing-resistant plant community such as bluegrass, mat muhly, dandelions, and

pussytoes. These annual species lack the root mass capable of withstanding large flow events,

leading to bank shearing, and either widening of the channel or headcutting. As these alterations

to channel morphology occur, riparian-wetland areas lose their ability to hold moisture, leading

to encroachment by upland vegetation species. Over use of upland forage can lead to increases

in overland flow, contributing to excessive sedimentation in riparian-wetland areas. Grazing

management strategies, such as rotation, deferment, seasonal rest, and the manipulation of season

of use and grazing intensity, are implemented to manage vegetation composition, cover, and vigor

to maintain or achieve Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and PFC in riparian-wetland

areas.

Wild horses are managed to maintain appropriate management levels in balance with forage

resources and herd objectives. Uncontrolled herd populations adversely impact riparian-wetland

areas in the form of decreased bank stability, decreased water quality, and hummocking resulting

from congregation in these areas and improper livestock grazing management in riparian-wetland

areas. Management of wild horses to maintain appropriate management levels would prevent

over use of riparian-wetland areas. An additional long-term impact to riparian-wetland systems

in HMAs is the “mudding up” that wild horses practice in wild-horse congregation areas. Wild

horses create a “wallow” in some areas to cover themselves with mud to protect them from

flies. Impacts in wallow areas would be minor, but would occur and would denude the sites of

vegetation. Wild horses congregating in riparian-wetland areas tend to chase cattle away, which

has a beneficial impact on riparian-wetland areas by reducing forage use by grazing livestock;

however, these occurrences are localized and not widespread. As horse populations increase,

wallows increase in number and impacts to riparian-wetland areas in HMAs increase.

Linear features such as pipelines, roads, and fences also result in direct adverse impacts to

riparian-wetland areas; they impact bank stability and contribute to a high degree of sedimentation

and water flow routed directly to the riparian-wetland areas. The loss of vegetation capable of

dissipating water energy, compounded with soil compaction related to energy development, would

lead to increased runoff and sedimentation in riparian-wetland areas. Increases in direct water

flow can result in headcutting and excessive erosion in some portions of the riparian-wetland area.

Conversely, additional sedimentation in the riparian-wetland area can lead to more deposition

and braiding of the stream system. INNS are often introduced to riparian-wetland areas via

these linear actions and they take advantage of new surface disturbance, with the potential to

outcompete native riparian-wetland vegetation for soil and water resources. Species such as

tamarisk, Russian olive, leafy spurge, Russian knapweed, and hoary cress have the potential to

dominate riparian-wetland areas and take the place of native sedges, cottonwoods, and willows.

INNS species generally lack the necessary root mass to bind the soil that is typically associated

with riparian-wetland-obligate species, which can lead to headcutting and excessive erosion.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 823

Designated ROW corridors would concentrate new disturbance in areas of existing disturbance,

preventing new unmitigated impacts to riparian-wetland areas.

Indirect impacts to riparian-wetland resources would result primarily from sedimentation flow

into the riparian-wetland zone. While most surface-disturbing activity would not occur near

riparian-wetland areas, these areas could experience indirect impacts due to soil compaction, loss

of vegetative cover, and erosion in the uplands, causing increases in sediment released into

streams. Higher sediment loading entering a stream could alter its form and, consequently, the

performance of adjacent riparian-wetland resources. The impact of increased sediment loading

depends on the stream’s ability to pass the sediment through the system and largely depends on the

size (discharge volume) of the stream and the channel slope gradient. In segments of a stream with

lower gradients, deposition occurs and the stream channel aggrades (builds), possibly becoming

braided and shallow. In some cases, aggradations of the streambed at one location can cause the

stream to down cut or degrade (become more incised) in upstream reaches as the stream seeks to

restore its equilibrium. The additional material eroded from the upstream channel is transported

down to the a depositional area and the cycle continues. In such cases, the functionality of the

riparian-wetland areas in both the aggraded stream reach and the incised stream reach change.

The BLM manages riparian-wetland habitat for several special status species, including a variety

of different raptors, plants, amphibian, and fish species. Management of habitats critical for these

special status species generally involves restricting activities in the vicinity of riparian-wetland

areas or, in the case of wildlife, year-round or seasonal restrictions. As a result, the extra

protections associated with these species can result in beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland areas

in the vicinity of buffer zones for special status species.

Similar to wildlife and fisheries, management actions designed to protect cultural resources

from the impacts of surface-disturbing activities would also protect riparian-wetland resources

from these activities.

Impacts to riparian-wetlands as a result of surface disturbance associated with locatable mineral

development would be the same under all alternatives, notwithstanding the difference in acres

withdrawn from mineral entry under each alternative. Withdrawals would not impact existing

claims and it is assumed that the most viable or likely areas for mineral development have already

been claimed. While it is possible that changing markets could change what is determined by

industry to be economically viable, for analysis purposes each alternative assumes 109 acres per

year of short-term (3 to 5 years) disturbance and 95 acres per year of long-term disturbance.

These numbers are based on actual data from the last 2 decades.

Locatable minerals are not subject to established or proposed buffers for riparian-wetland areas.

Consequently, there would be a potential for adverse impacts to riparian-wetland areas in the

form of altered stream channels, degraded bank stability, and the removal of hydric soils and

riparian-wetland vegetation. Surface-disturbing activities in riparian-wetland areas are generally

mitigated on or off the sites. Net acres of riparian-wetland areas lost or mitigated are not available

at this time; however, impacts related to lost and mitigated riparian-wetland areas are best

analyzed on a site-specific basis.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources
824 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.4.4.3.2. Alternative A

4.4.4.3.2.1. Program Management

Program management under Alternative A consists of managing riparian-wetland areas to

meet PFC and prohibiting surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of surface water and

riparian-wetland areas. Management actions designed to improve streams and conserve

riparian-wetland areas generally result in long-term beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland

resources. Site-specific management actions such as fencing, deferred use, resting, and road

closures are implemented to maintain and meet PFC for riparian-wetland systems. Man-made

barriers such as fences generally result in the greatest immediate impact to riparian-wetland

areas that do not meet PFC by minimizing livestock and wildlife grazing, and thus eliminating

the greatest adverse impact to riparian-wetland areas. However, fencing all riparian-wetland

areas would not be a practical management strategy, and fences result in a number of adverse

impacts to wildlife (see the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife section). On a case-by-case

basis, the BLM will give management priority to actions that would benefit riparian-wetland

areas in the Sweetwater watershed that do not meet PFC. The riparian-wetland resources in the

Beaver Rim area would be managed with standard riparian setbacks and no watershed monitoring

would be required. Alternative A range improvement projects would be anticipated to disturb

more acres than Alternative B, but fewer than Alternative C. While these treatments could

result in short-term impacts in terms of surface disturbance, they would be expected to result in

long-term beneficial impacts to these areas.

4.4.4.3.2.2. Resources

Alternative A does not specifically manage lands with wilderness characteristics to maintain

their wilderness character.

Alternative A manages grasslands and shrublands to meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands. Grasslands and shrublands that meet Standards for Healthy Rangelands promote

healthy herbaceous communities capable of stabilizing upland soils, dissipating water-flow

energy, and increasing water infiltration rates and water holding capacity. Healthy grasslands

and shrublands minimize sedimentation and excessive water flow into riparian-wetland areas,

promoting PFC. Conversely, degraded grasslands and shrublands allow for increased overland

flow and sediment movement. Degraded grasslands and shrublands contribute to increased

erosion and sedimentation in riparian-wetland areas until they are improved to meet Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Alternative A management of forest and woodlands for the promotion of timber products would

have the potential to result in increased surface disturbance associated with access roads and

timber removal operations. This activity could result in a return to an early seral-stage plant

community comprised primarily of annual species. As discussed under Impacts Common to

All Alternatives, annual species lack the root mass necessary for proper soil stabilization,

leading to the potential of increased erosion rates and contributions of excess sediments to

the riparian-wetland areas. Alternative A allows clear-cut operations within 100 feet of

riparian-wetland areas and on slopes of as much as 45 percent, further resulting in the potential for

excessive erosion and sediment movement into riparian-wetland areas. Appropriate management

of forest products to maintain and improve forest and woodland health would promote watershed

health by providing adequate vegetation to dissipate water energy and minimize sediment

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 825

movement. Market conditions suggest that there would be negligible to minor impacts to

riparian-wetlands because of a lack of demand for products.

INNS are particularly undesirable in riparian-wetland areas because they do not have the same

high level of soil-binding properties of many native riparian-wetland species (e.g., willows and

sedges). The proximity of surface disturbances to riparian-wetland areas is one of the primary

ways in which INNS can spread to these areas. Prohibiting surface disturbance within 500 feet

of riparian-wetland areas would help reduce the opportunity to spread INNS to these areas.

INNS management under Alternative A does not restrict any kind of chemical application near

riparian-wetland areas. Application of chemicals near water could reduce water quality, which

would adversely impact the health of riparian-wetland resources.

Management actions under Alternative A designed to protect wildlife and special status species

habitat from the impacts of surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities would also

protect riparian-wetland resources from the impacts of these activities. For example, applying

NSO and CSU restrictions in crucial wildlife habitat would reduce the chance of sediment

loading into streams in these areas. Other beneficial impacts would include restoring streams

and fisheries habitat on a case-by-case basis, which would result in a direct beneficial impact

to riparian-wetland areas. Alternative A limits surface disturbance within 1⁄4 mile of greater

sage-grouse leks, but the degree of beneficial impact of this management would depend on the

amount of riparian-wetland areas within 1⁄4 mile of leks.

4.4.4.3.2.3. Resource Uses

The projected number of wells and associated surface disturbance under Alternative A is the

second highest of the alternatives, resulting in an estimated disturbance over the planning period

of approximately 22,475 acres of initial disturbance and approximately 11,706 acres of long-term

disturbance from oil and gas development. Of this projected disturbance, 15,405 acres of initial

disturbance and approximately 7,995 acres of long-term disturbance would be from federal wells;

the remainder of the disturbance would be associated with wells on state and private lands. It is

possible that riparian-wetland resources would be adversely impacted in the Beaver Rim area by

the 500 foot exclusion zone and lack of watershed monitoring.

While Alternative A prohibits surface-disturbing activities associated with mineral development

within 500 feet of riparian-wetlands, these activities, including well pad construction, pipeline

development, road construction, and gravel pit development and use, in upland areas could

increase sediment loading in streams.

Wells, pipelines, and facilities situated close to riparian-wetland resources would have the

potential to contribute produced water of varying quality and hydrocarbons directly to the

riparian-wetland areas in the event of a spill, contaminating riparian-wetland soils and resulting

in adverse impacts to vegetation and water quality. Alternative A allows the surface discharge

of produced water if it meets State of Wyoming water quality standards and is permitted by the

state. Produced water from oil and gas development would represent a new water source in a

watershed that augments existing water flows.

If produced water from CBNG or conventional gas development was disposed of on the surface,

there could be impacts to riparian-wetland vegetation. These impacts could be beneficial due to

increased water quantity that could have a beneficial impact on riparian-wetland vegetation or

create new riparian-wetland areas. Any new riparian-wetland areas resulting from the discharge

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources
826 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

of produced water would depend entirely on continued discharge of produced water. It is

possible that the reduction or termination of produced-water flow would adversely impact

riparian-wetlands in the long term; that is, riparian-wetlands might not return to predisturbance

conditions, which could lead to the introduction of INNS.

The chemistry of produced water would have the potential to change not only the vegetative

community, but also soil chemistry. Upon ultimate recovery of the mineral resource and the end

of production operations, these newly created riparian-wetlands would no longer have the steady

source of water necessary to maintain the riparian-wetland-obligate vegetation species. The

loss of hydrology, compounded by modifications to the soil chemistry, would create ecological

conditions that are often difficult to reclaim to an upland herbaceous community or the ecological

plant community present before the discharge of produced water. Newly created riparian-wetlands

would ultimately provide only a temporary potential beneficial impact. Conversely, increasing

water quantities into existing riparian-wetland systems could result in an adverse impact through

increased erosion, loss of bank stability, downcutting of stream channels on steeper gradients, and

increased sedimentation and deposition, leading to widening of the stream channel and braiding

on lower gradients. Impacts from the discharge of produced water are most often adverse to

riparian-wetland areas due to increased sedimentation, increased salinity, dissolved compounds,

and water temperature that could adversely impact riparian-wetland systems, as discussed in more

detail in the Water section.

Mineral materials disposals have averaged approximately 183 acres of surface disturbance per

year over the past 20 years. It is not anticipated that this development would change over the next

20 years, and could be reduced because it includes years of AML work that required extensive

aggregate for reclamation. While this amount of use is assumed to be constant for the over the

planning period under all alternatives, the 500-foot setback protection for riparian-wetlands is

applied to mineral materials disposals.

Alternative A opens 2,240,104 acres to non-oil and gas mineral leasing. The most likely

development would be of phosphate resources, but these have surface restrictions on development

(see the discussions for the Lander Slope and Red Canyon ACECs in the Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern section). Solid minerals development is a surface-disturbing activity that

results in long-term adverse impacts to riparian-wetlands, because all vegetation and overburden

is stripped to access the minerals.

Of the alternatives, Alternative A allows motorized vehicle use on existing and designated roads

and trails across the second largest area. There would be more surface disturbance associated

with trail creation under Alternative A than under Alternative B, but less than under Alternative

C. Motorized vehicle use and the associated increased access it provides to recreationists could

adversely impact riparian-wetland resources by introducing INNS near streams or wetlands and

increasing erosion and sediment loading in streams. Recreational activities such as camping often

occur near riparian-wetland areas and could result in adverse impacts through soil compaction

and trash accumulation in or near these areas. More developed recreation areas would increase

this potential, although most impacts would be expected to be mitigated by managing recreational

use to maintain or improve riparian-wetland habitat conditions along intensively used streams

and reservoirs. Recreation management areas such as SRMAs and ERMAs that implement

more intensive management of recreation activities in these areas would beneficially impact

riparian-wetlands by restricting surface disturbance in these areas. Alternative A designates

three SRMAs and 11 distinct ERMAs. These designations would result in a beneficial impact

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 827

to riparian-wetland resources by focusing recreation management and could adversely impact

riparian-wetland resources if recreation management concentrates usage in riparian-wetlands.

Most of the planning area is open to livestock grazing under Alternative A. Concentrated

livestock grazing and over use of forage resources would increase runoff in a watershed due to

soil compaction and loss of vegetative cover, with the amount of bare ground being the primary

factor. As the weather dries and air temperatures increase, upland vegetation begins to dry and

go dormant, but riparian-wetland areas remain lush and green. These lush green areas attract

livestock to loiter and congregate. Alternative A prohibits the placement of salt and mineral

supplements within 1⁄4 mile of water, wetlands, and riparian areas, drawing livestock away

from riparian-wetland areas and decreasing the direct impacts from livestock congregation in

riparian-wetland areas compared to Alternative C. Livestock range improvement projects and

supplements would distribute livestock over a large area, but would also create concentrated

use in local areas. Over the long term, these improvements potentially improve the stability

and resiliency of riparian-wetland resources.

4.4.4.3.2.4. Special Designations

Special designations beneficially impact riparian-wetlands when they place additional restrictions

on activities that degrade watershed health (e.g., surface-disturbing activities and motorized

vehicle use). These restrictions would result in indirect beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland

areas because the areas would not be subject to large-scale surface-disturbing activities. Overall,

special designations under Alternative A would result in beneficial impacts to approximately

4,340 acres of riparian-wetland resources and 17,629 acres of protections in and adjacent to

riparian-wetland resources.

4.4.4.3.3. Alternative B

4.4.4.3.3.1. Program Management

Program management under Alternative B would result in more beneficial impacts to

riparian-wetland resources than Alternative A. Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing

activities within 1,320 feet of surface water, riparian-wetland areas, playas, and mapped 100-year

floodplains; however, this would not apply in areas with high and moderate potential for oil

and gas development. The additional buffer associated with Alternative B would be expected

to minimize the introduction of INNS into riparian-wetland areas. In addition, the larger buffer

area would provide more herbaceous coverage for filtering sediments and dissipating water

energy before water enters riparian-wetland areas, resulting in a net beneficial impact. Alternative

B promotes the use of natural management strategies such as timing restrictions, road closures,

and livestock management to maintain and meet PFC in riparian-wetland areas. These strategies

would result in long-term beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland areas, but would not achieve

riparian-wetland improvements as quickly as using fencing, as identified under Alternative A.

Alternative B requires a reduction in AUMs to achieve use objectives based on monitoring,

which would have a beneficial impact on riparian-wetland resources that currently do not meet

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Watershed improvement projects under Alternative

B would be anticipated to disturb the fewest acres. While these projects could result in short-term

adverse impacts in terms of surface disturbance, they would result in long-term beneficial impacts

to these areas.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources
828 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.4.4.3.3.2. Resources

The Little Red Creek Complex in Dubois is managed as non-WSA land with wilderness

characteristics under Alternative B and would be managed to preserve its wilderness

characteristics. This management prohibits surface disturbance or other activities that would

adversely impact the area's wilderness characteristics, which would also have a beneficial impact

on riparian-wetland areas. Local beneficial impacts in the Little Red Creek Complex would be

major, but planning area-wide the beneficial impacts from this management would be minor.

Alternative B's management of forests and woodlands and forest products would be similar to

those under Alternative A. However, prohibiting clear-cut of timber harvest under Alternative

B should minimize overland flow and sedimentation into riparian-wetland areas, as described

for Alternative A. There would be an increased risk of landscape-level fire over Alternative A

in the short term, which would result in adverse impacts to riparian-wetlands. On a timeframe

beyond the scale of this RMP, this would be expected to be a beneficial impact. Lack of market

demand suggests that sales of forest products would result in only a minor beneficial impact

to riparian-wetlands.

Management actions designed to protect wildlife and special status species habitat apply greater

restrictions on surface-disturbing activity under Alternative B than under the other alternatives,

and therefore would result in more beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland resources. The

expansion of the greater sage-grouse buffer to 0.6 miles under Alternative B would result in

moderate to major beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland areas because there would be no

degradation of riparian-wetland resources from surface disturbance. Management actions

designed to improve fisheries would also result in more beneficial impacts under Alternative B

through the removal and minimization of barriers to fish and more in-stream flow requirements

when considering projects. These restoration activities would result in beneficial impacts to

riparian-wetland resources.

4.4.4.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B authorizes the fewest number of oil and gas wells. Under Alternative B, there

would be a total of 17,780 acres of short-term disturbance from oil and gas development activities

and 9,184 acres of long-term disturbance. Of this projected disturbance, 10,720 acres of initial

disturbance and approximately 5,478 acres of long-term disturbance would be from federal wells.

The remaining acres of disturbance would be associated with wells on state and private lands.

Compared to alternatives A and C, Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing activities associated

with mineral development within 1,320 feet of surface water, riparian-wetlands, playas, and

100-year floodplains, which would mitigate most direct and indirect impacts associated with

mineral development. However, well pad construction, pipeline development, road construction,

and gravel pit development and use would still contribute some sediment to local streams. The

projected amount of surface disturbance associated with mineral development under Alternative

B would be the lowest of all alternatives. Most of the impacts would be temporary during the life

of the operation. Upon completion of operations and ultimate recovery of the mineral resource,

all the existing disturbance would be reclaimed; however, in the short term, mineral extraction

activities would increase the potential for riparian-wetland health degradation. Activities such

as well pad and road construction would increase runoff and sediment loading in streams.

Alternative B prohibits the surface discharge of produced water on BLM-administered surface,

negating the impacts (both beneficial and adverse) described under Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 829

The closure of greater sage-grouse Core Area including the Beaver Rim area to oil and gas

leasing would beneficially impact riparian-wetland resources in those areas by limiting oil and gas

surface disturbance. This would be more beneficial than Alternative A which has a far smaller

NSO protective area around leks.

The smaller amount of surface disturbance and larger riparian-wetland buffer proposed under

Alternative B compared to the other alternatives would result in the least impact associated with

INNS in riparian-wetlands due to surface-disturbing activities outside areas with high to moderate

potential for oil and gas. Alternative B allows the Authorized Officer to require livestock flushing

for 72 hours before allowing livestock to move onto or within BLM-administered land if it is

suspected that livestock are carrying ingested INNS seeds. Discretionary livestock flushing would

limit the risk of spreading INNS to riparian-wetland areas from ingested seeds.

Alternative B would involve the least short- and long-term surface disturbance associated with

road development for oil and gas and other mineral development in the planning area. Fewer

roads in the planning area would decrease opportunities for direct water flow into riparian-wetland

areas, thus reducing the potential for the riparian-wetland channel to become incised and reducing

the potential for INNS introduction.

Alternative B opens fewer acres to non-oil and gas mineral leasing than Alternative A. Alternative

B opens 464,859 acres to leasable minerals. Solid minerals leasing involves extensive surface

disturbance, so closing areas to leasing would result in beneficial impacts to riparian-wetlands to

the extent that solid mineral potential exists an area.

Alternative B allows motorized vehicle use on existing and designated roads and trails in

the smallest area and would result in the fewest acres of surface disturbance associated with

new road and trail creation of any alternative. Limiting motorized vehicle use to a greater

percentage of designated roads and trails and a lower percentage of existing roads and trails

would limit public access and reduce the associated potential impacts to riparian-wetland areas

described under Alternative A. Alternative B closes the largest area to motorized vehicle use

compared to other alternatives. Cross-country motorized travel to retrieve big game carcasses

and perform other necessary tasks such as repairing range improvement projects is prohibited

in areas with limited travel designations, and would limit erosion and sediment loading from

trail proliferation near riparian-wetland areas. Alternative B emphasizes developing camping

or recreation sites, reducing the potential for adverse impacts associated with concentrated

recreational activities. Recreation management areas such as SRMAs and ERMAs that implement

more intensive management of recreation activities in these areas would result in beneficial

impacts to riparian-wetlands by restricting surface disturbance and placing emphasis on ensuring

recreation activities do not conflict with rangeland health objectives in these areas. Alternative B

designates seven SRMAs and 12 distinct ERMAs.

Livestock grazing management is more restrictive under Alternative B compared to the other

alternatives. A 1⁄2-mile buffer prohibiting the placement of salt and mineral supplements

near water, wetlands, and riparian areas would provide more protection for these resources

from livestock and native ungulate grazing. Alternative B would result in many fewer range

improvement projects than other alternatives – perhaps none other than for the benefit of wildlife.

While restricting infrastructure would limit disturbance associated with these activities in the

short term, riparian-wetland areas would not experience the long-term beneficial impacts of

riparian-wetland exclosures. Limiting range improvement project development would necessitate

a reduction in stocking rates; however, livestock concentration would continue to impact

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources
830 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

riparian-wetland resources. Under Alternative B, use levels would be limited to light (21 to 40

percent) in areas livestock prefer, which would prevent adverse impacts from improper livestock

grazing management in riparian-wetland areas.

4.4.4.3.3.4. Special Designations

Compared to other alternatives, Alternative B includes the most acres managed as special

designations and places more restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in special designation

areas. Restrictions such as NSO, mineral withdrawals, and prohibitions on surface-disturbing

activities would limit adverse impacts on approximately 21,782 acres of riparian-wetland

resources in these areas. Alternative B manages all NWSRS-eligible waterway segments

as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS, and would result in the most beneficial impacts to

riparian-wetland areas. The demand for surface disturbance in these areas is not known.

4.4.4.3.4. Alternative C

4.4.4.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C manages riparian-wetland areas to meet PFC using all management tools available,

such as range improvement projects, travel management, and new road construction. Alternative

C allows the greatest level of surface disturbance, including surface-disturbing activities in

floodplains and riparian-wetland areas on a case-by-case basis. By having the fewest prohibitions

on surface-disturbing activities, Alternative C would result in the fewest beneficial impacts

to riparian-wetlands compared to other alternatives. Like Alternative A, Alternative C would

not require an MLP in the Beaver Rim area.

4.4.4.3.4.2. Resources

Alternative C does not manage any areas as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics

and, consequently, the beneficial impacts from non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics

management would not be realized, the same as Alternative A.

Alternative C manages grasslands and shrublands to maximize forage production which favors a

shift in herbaceous community to more of a grass-dominated plant community. This would

have no different impacts to riparian-wetland resources than Alternative B, so long as grazing

management did not allow overuse of the riparian-wetland areas by livestock preferring the

grasses.

Alternative C management of forests and woodlands and forest products would result in more

adverse impacts to riparian-wetland areas than Alternative B, and impacts would be similar to

those under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, management actions designed to expedite and

prioritize replanting would result in beneficial impacts on riparian-wetland areas by minimizing

the impacts of long-term overland flow and sedimentation.

Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts associated with INNS than the other

alternatives because it includes fewer restrictions on surface-disturbing activities near and

in riparian-wetland areas. An increase in INNS would alter the vegetative communities,

introducing species that use more water and lack the high level of soil-binding properties of native

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 831

riparian-wetland species. Alternative C does not require livestock flushing, which would increase

the chance of spreading ingested INNS seed in riparian-wetland areas.

Like Alternative A, Alternative C applies fewer management restrictions on surface-disturbing and

surface-disruptive activities designed to protect wildlife and special status species. The absence

of or decrease in these restrictions would result in fewer beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland

resources compared to Alternative B. To the extent that the 0.6-mile buffer includes many more

riparian-wetland areas, adverse impacts under Alternative C would be much more substantial

when compared to Alternative B. Management actions designed to improve fisheries would be

similar to Alternative A and would therefore result in similar beneficial impacts.

4.4.4.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C makes the most acres available for mineral development. Adverse impacts to

riparian-wetlands from mineral development would be greater under Alternative C than under

Alternative B, and would be similar to impacts under Alternative A. During the planning period,

Alternative C would result in the short-term disturbance of approximately 22,543 acres and

long-term disturbance of 11,743 acres. Of these totals, 15,473 acres of short-term disturbance

and 8,032 acres of long-term disturbance would from federal wells; the remainder would be

from wells on state and private lands.

However, due to buffers around riparian-wetland areas, almost all of this disturbance would

occur in the uplands (the exceptions being roads and pipelines); therefore, direct adverse impacts

to riparian-wetland resources would not result. The projected amount of surface disturbance

associated with mineral development under Alternative C is the highest of the alternatives.

Activities such as well pad and road construction would increase runoff and sediment loading

in streams. Alternative C allows disposal of produced water through surface-water discharge.

Impacts to riparian-wetland resources from surface-water discharge would be similar to those

under Alternative A. The impacts to the riparian-wetland resources under Alternative C would be

the same as under Alternative A because both apply only standard riparian-wetland stipulations.

Management of salable minerals under Alternative C would likely disturb the same

number of acres as the other alternatives. However, impacts would likely be more adverse

to riparian-wetlands than under Alternative B, because Alternative B includes a larger

riparian-wetland setback and protects a larger portion of the transition area between

riparian-wetland areas and uplands. This difference would probably be minor to moderate because

mineral materials disposals avoid riparian-wetland areas under all alternatives.

Most of the planning area is open to livestock grazing under Alternative C. Livestock management

strategies will be developed to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and PFC.

Alternative C uses range improvement project infrastructure to implement livestock grazing

management designed to protect riparian-wetland areas. These strategies must incorporate

many different facets of livestock management to be successful. Systems that prove to be

ineffective will be reevaluated and revised as necessary to achieve rangeland health objectives and

riparian-wetlands PFC. In contrast to the other alternatives, Alternative C uses the placement of

salt and mineral supplements to maximize use of the forage resource. This management strategy

could result in more livestock near riparian-wetland areas, which would result in the greatest

potential adverse impact to riparian-wetland areas. Alternative C manages for moderate use (41

to 60 percent) in areas livestock prefer, resulting in more use of riparian-wetland vegetation.

Concentrated livestock grazing would adversely impact bank stability, and increase runoff in a

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources
832 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

watershed due to soil compaction and loss of vegetative cover. In addition, increased livestock

grazing in these areas would result in a greater potential to introduce INNS. Under Alternative C,

livestock grazing use levels in preferred areas would result in greater forage removal than under

Alternative B. Alternative C would result in the most range improvement projects. In the short

term, these projects would result in increased surface disturbance. However, in the long term,

these projects would result in the most beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland resources compared

to the other alternatives by drawing livestock away from sensitive areas.

Motorized vehicle use under Alternative C would result in the most impacts to riparian-wetland

areas of all the alternatives. Impacts to riparian-wetlands associated with motorized vehicle

uses would be similar to Alternative A, only to a greater extent. Alternative C designates most

BLM-administered land in the planning area as limited to existing roads and trails and closes the

fewest acres to motorized vehicle use compared to the other alternatives, which would result in

adverse impacts to riparian-wetland resources in more areas. Alternative C minimizes restrictions

on OHV use more than other alternatives, which would result in an increase in associated adverse

impacts to riparian-wetland areas. Alternative C also allows the use of cross-country motorized

travel for casual-use activities, such as well staking, that could damage vegetation and cause

erosion in some riparian-wetland areas. If demand warrants, the BLM would develop or upgrade

recreation sites and associated amenities, which would result in impacts similar to Alternative A.

Alternative C identifies one SRMA and 13 distinct ERMAs. Restrictions on surface-disturbing

activities in SRMAs and ERMAs would help reduce potential impacts (such as erosion and

sediment loading in nearby streams) to riparian-wetland areas.

4.4.4.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C places the fewest restrictions on surface-disturbing activity in special designations

and designates the fewest of these areas. Alternative C does not designate ACECs, including

the NSO stipulations so that the impacts to riparian-wetland areas would be more adverse

than Alternative A. In the Beaver Rim area and the proposed expanded Green Mountain

ACEC, Alternative C’s management is standard stipulations so that the adverse impacts to

riparian-wetland resources would be the same and more adverse than Alternative B. Alternative

C does not manage any NWSRS-eligible waterway segments as suitable for inclusion in the

NWSRS. Special designations under Alternative C include approximately 1,574 acres of

riparian-wetland resources. Therefore, special designations under Alternative C would result in

the fewest beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland areas.

4.4.4.3.5. Alternative D

4.4.4.3.5.1. Program Management

Program management under Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts to

riparian-wetland resources than those under Alternative A or Alternative C, but fewer than those

under Alternative B. Alternative D prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of

riparian-wetland areas except in DDAs. Alternative D includes fewer restrictions on mineral

development in DDAs, but places more restrictions on development throughout the remainder

of the planning area. Beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland resources would be a product of

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and the use of Required Design Features (from

mineral development, travel management, recreational use, and modifications to livestock grazing

strategies.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 833

Alternative D includes smaller buffers around riparian-wetland areas than Alternative B, and

therefore would provide less herbaceous cover for water dissipation and sediment capture than

Alternative B. The adequacy of riparian-wetland buffers varies greatly based on a number of

factors including slope, soil type, adjacent land use, precipitation, and stream size. Given the

large number of variables, 500 feet would likely be adequate to account for these variables while

providing the necessary attributes for water dissipation, sediment capture, and habitat needs

of amphibians and other wildlife species to beneficially impact riparian-wetland resources. It

is currently undetermined what level of beneficial impact there would be from the additional

buffer under Alternative B.

Alternative D utilizes management strategies such as timing restrictions, road closures, and

livestock management to maintain and meet PFC in riparian-wetland areas rather than new

infrastructure such as fences and water improvement projects unless the proposed infrastructure is

part of a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy. Where natural strategies are employed, Alternative

D would result in broader beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland areas than relying on actions

such as fencing identified in for alternatives A and C. However, Alternative D uses fencing in

many more situations than Alternative B. While fencing would not be practical on a large scale,

and could result in conflicts with other resources such as wildlife, when combined with a broader

management strategy that includes restricting use levels in riparian-wetland areas, and where

site-specific conditions are favorable, fences could be effective in improving riparian-wetland

systems.

Alternative D applies an MLP to the Beaver Rim area and applies NSO management to areas

south of the Green Mountain ACEC for the protection of soils and viewshed.

4.4.4.3.5.2. Resources

Alternative D manages the Little Red Creek Complex as non-WSA land containing wilderness

characteristics to maintain its wilderness characteristics but on a smaller area than under

Alternative B. This management would beneficially impact riparian-wetland values in the area by

limiting surface disturbance and development. This would be more beneficial than Alternative A

or Alternative C, neither of which manage the area with any special protections for wilderness

characteristics.

Alternative D manages grasslands and shrublands similar to Alternative A with the same neutral

impacts. The difference in goals for vegetation communities inside DDAs are different than

outside. However, both will meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, and both would be

capable of stabilizing soils, dissipating water-flow energy, and increasing water infiltration rates

and water-holding capacity, thereby minimizing sediment movement offsite into riparian-wetland

areas. Conversely, degraded grasslands and shrublands that do not meet Standards for Healthy

Rangelands would allow for more overland flow during storm events and ultimately more

sediment movement into riparian-wetland areas. The desired herbaceous communities would vary

from those under alternatives B and C; however, impacts to riparian-wetland resources would

not be expected to vary as a result.

Alternative D management of forests and woodlands and forest products allows for clear-cuts,

determining the size and location based on resource values and silviculture objectives. There is

no standardized buffer for riparian-wetland areas, and the size of clear-cuts is not regulated

through this process. Alternative D allows for site-specific analyses to identify the appropriate

buffer width and size of clear-cut to minimize impacts to riparian-wetland resources. Identifying

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources
834 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

riparian-wetland buffers adequate to filter and capture sediment based on regional topography

and clear-cut size would have a greater beneficial impact on riparian-wetland systems than the

standardized buffer widths and slope restrictions under alternatives A and C. However, given

the lack of local demand for forest products and the limited resources in the planning area, it is

anticipated that impacts to riparian-wetland areas due to the harvest of forest products would be

minor under all alternatives.

Alternative D applies more restrictions on surface-disturbing activities than alternatives A and C,

but not as many as Alternative B for the protection of wildlife, cultural values, and viewsheds.

Accordingly, impacts to riparian-wetland resources would be less than those under alternatives A

and C, but more than those under Alternative B. Restrictions on surface disturbance due to special

status species limit the amount of bare ground allowed, particularly in the greater sage-grouse

Core Area, and therefore would reduce overland flow and sedimentation into riparian-wetland

areas. Impacts to riparian-wetland areas from surface disposal are more likely under Alternative

D than Alternative B, which prohibits surface disturbance. However, whether the impacts would

be beneficial or adverse would depend on site-specific factors. Required Design Features would

limit adverse impacts associated with many mineral developments. Outside the Core Area, the

limitation on surface disturbance around leks is the same under Alternative D as under alternatives

A and C, with moderate to major adverse impacts to riparian-wetland areas. The closure of the

Dubois area under Alternative D to surface-disturbing activities such as oil and gas development,

phosphate leasing, mineral materials disposals, and major ROWs would result in a net beneficial

impact to riparian-wetland resources by reducing sedimentation from upland runoff. However, the

Dubois area has not historically been an area of intensive mineral development, so the beneficial

impact to riparian-wetland resources could be limited.

4.4.4.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D makes available more acres for mineral development and authorizes more wells

than Alternative B, but not as many acres as alternatives A and C. Under Alternative D, there

would be a total of approximately 21,533 acres of initial surface disturbance and 11,201 acres

of long-term disturbance. Approximately 14,473 acres of initial disturbance and approximately

7,495 acres of long-term disturbance would be associated with federal wells. The remaining acres

would be associated with wells on state and private lands. Similarly, Alternative D withdraws

fewer acres from locatable mineral entry than Alternative B, but not as many as Alternative A

and substantially fewer than Alternative C. Alternative D proposes to withdraw approximately

461,073 acres from locatable mineral entry. Therefore, Alternative D will result in more adverse

impacts to riparian-wetland areas due to mineral development than Alternative B. However,

Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts than Alternative A, and substantially

more beneficial impacts than Alternative C, based on greater number of acres withdrawn from

locatable mineral entry, closed to mineral leasing, or leased with more restrictions including the

requirement for Required Design Features. Generally, Alternative D would protect approximately

125,403 fewer acres of riparian-wetland resources than Alternative B. Conversely, Alternative D

would protect more acres than alternatives A and C because more riparian-wetland areas would

be protected by other management.

Alternative D would result in more initial and long-term surface disturbance associated with

linear features such as roads and pipelines than Alternative B, but less than alternatives A and C.

Fewer linear disturbances, primarily as a product of restrictions on mineral development, would

reduce opportunities for direct water flow into riparian-wetland areas, thus reducing the potential

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 835

for stream channel degradation and reducing the potential for INNS introduction which would

further benefit from Required Design Features.

Alternative D allows motorized vehicle use on existing roads and designated roads and trails in a

larger area than Alternative B, but a smaller area than alternatives A and C. The result would be

less surface disturbance and fewer new roads and trails created than under alternatives A and C.

Alternative D would impact approximately 125,403 more acres of riparian-wetland resources than

Alternative B. Conversely, Alternative D would impact approximately 20,000 fewer acres than

alternatives A and C due to motorized vehicle closures. Motorized vehicle use would increase

adverse impacts to riparian-wetland areas, as described under Alternative A, and would increase

the likelihood of user-created roads.

As identified for the other alternatives, Alternative D opens most of the planning area to livestock

grazing. Livestock grazing management would be less restrictive under Alternative D than under

Alternative B because Alternative D allows moderate use levels when accompanied with a

Comprehensive Grazing Strategy, and would use more infrastructure to improve rangeland health

and meet rangeland health objectives. However, in cases where livestock use is continuous or

takes place annually during the critical growing season for uplands or during the riparian-wetland

hot seasons, light use might be necessary. Use levels would be based on the results of monitoring

data. Given that a large number of grazing allotments in the planning area have continuous use

during the critical growing season or during the riparian-wetland hot season, it is anticipated that

light use would be necessary to achieve Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and meet

PFC for riparian-wetland systems. In addition, Alternative D requires that forage requirements

for big-game herd objectives be considered when determining stocking rates for livestock and

wild horses. Because riparian-wetland systems are critical to all wildlife species, it is anticipated

that Alternative D would require lower stocking rates for livestock than alternatives A and C, but

would not reduce stocking rates as much as under Alternative B. Moderate livestock grazing use

would result in beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland systems by reducing over use, hummocking,

and stream bank shearing. With healthier herbaceous communities, riparian-wetland areas would

be capable of filtering and trapping more sediments and contaminants, and would enhance water

infiltration. Alternative D restricts the placement of mineral supplements similar to Alternative B,

which would result in similar beneficial impacts. While these beneficial impacts would be more

pronounced under Alternative D than under Alternative A, and far exceed those under Alternative

C, they would not be as widespread or effective as under Alternative B.

Recreation management areas such as SRMAs and ERMAs that implement more intensive

management of recreation activities in those areas would beneficially impact riparian-wetland

areas by restricting surface disturbance and placing emphasis on ensuring recreation activities

do not conflict with rangeland health objectives. In this regard, Alternative D would result

in beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland areas similar to Alternative B, fewer impacts than

Alternative A, and more impacts than Alternative C, which emphasizes motorized recreation.

4.4.4.3.5.4. Special Designations

The surface disturbance limits associated with the NTMC would beneficially impact

riparian-wetland areas.

Alternative D manages 11,185 acres of riparian-wetland resources within special designations.

Furthermore, Alternative D limits or closes to surface disturbance 51,055 acres within 500 feet of

riparian-wetlands as part of special designation management.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Riparian-Wetland Resources
836 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.4.5. Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish

For purposes of analysis, the fish species addressed in this section include species endemic to the

planning area not addressed in the Special Status Species – Fish section. Implementation of certain

management actions could impact fish, depending on alternative. This section describes the direct,

indirect, short-term, and long-term adverse and beneficial impacts to fish under each alternative.

4.4.5.1. Summary of Impacts

Management actions and activities that result in soil erosion and increased sediment flow into

fish-bearing waterbodies typically result in adverse impacts to fish populations and fish habitat.

Actions that maintain or increase the amount of vegetative cover along stream banks that helps

regulate water temperatures beneficially impact fish habitat and macroinvertebrate production.

Direct impacts to fish can occur from vehicles directly entering stream channels on roads and

trails. Alternative B provides the greatest protection from surface-disturbing activities and would

result in the greatest beneficial impacts to fish resources. Alternative C provides the least amount

of protection and would result in the greatest potential for adverse impacts to fish resources.

Alternative D is similar in many aspects to Alternative A, but Alternative D increases protection

in areas important for other resources, particularly in special designation areas.

4.4.5.2. Methods and Assumptions

Management actions or resource uses that contribute to a decrease in abundance or distribution of

native fish species adversely impact fish resources. Conversely, management actions or measures

that protect fish species from disturbance improves habitat, or leads to increased populations or

viability beneficially impacts fish resources.

For purposes of this analysis, direct impacts are those that cause damage to habitat or habitat

quality or results in the loss or decline of fish populations. Direct impacts can result from

recreational use, toxicity from chemical contamination, or sedimentation. Indirect impacts include

the loss of suitable habitat for future occupation or reproduction. Conversely, management actions

that help protect suitable habitat result in indirect beneficial impacts to fish resources.

This analysis considers short-term impacts to fish species as those that contribute to a decline

in abundance or distribution within 5 years of an activity or management action, and long-term

impacts as those that do not manifest themselves until more than 5 years after an activity or

management action.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Activities that cause substantial disturbance to soils and vegetation can adversely impact

water quality and quantity, reducing habitat quality for fish that require clear water, moderated

streamflows, and clean substrates. Thus, to the extent that one alternative has less disturbance

to soils and vegetation, it will have less potential to adversely impact fish habitat.

● Surface disturbance accelerates runoff and sediment delivery to stream channels, which can

alter streamflows and adversely impact most fish species. This analysis focuses on the degree

of surface disturbance anticipated to occur under each alternative.

● The potential for sedimentation of streams and rivers can be minimized through the use of

BMPs applied as Required Design Features.

● The Wyoming State Engineer’s Office regulates activities that affect water quantity.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 837

● The Wyoming DEQ regulates activities that affect water quality.

● The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) will continue to manage fish populations

and the BLM will continue to manage fish habitats in coordination with the WGFD.

● Disturbance during sensitive periods can adversely impact fish populations.

● Consideration of aquatic habitat conditions when conducting BLM assessments, such as PFC

and rangeland health, will help to identify areas for stream habitat management and watershed

management efforts.

● The health of fisheries in the planning area is directly related to the overall health and

functional capabilities of riparian-wetland resources.

● Activities that affect the ecological condition of the watershed and its vegetative cover will

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-wetland 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.

4.4.5.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Management actions and resource uses that could impact fish species and their habitats include

all surface-disturbing activities, grazing (livestock, wild horses, native ungulates), chemical or

hydrocarbon contamination of water resources, OHV use, fire management, and activities that

deplete water quantity and the addition, timing, and temperature of clean water (CBNG produced

water).

Conversely, resource uses prescribed under the alternatives that would adversely impact fish

could, in turn, be limited by management actions that protect fish species.

4.4.5.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Although the types of impacts to fish species under the alternatives are similar, the intensity

of these impacts would vary by alternative. Potential impacts common to all alternatives are

described below.

Impacts that result in a decline in abundance or distribution of fish species can be generally

divided into two broad categories: (1) impacts associated with a change in water quality and (2)

impacts associated with a change in water quantity. For this analysis, water quality is defined in

terms of sediment loading, water temperature, and water chemistry. Water quantity is assumed

to be average flows under natural conditions.

An integrated management approach is used to achieve fish habitat objectives. In cooperation

with partners, strategies will be developed and implemented to prevent the introduction and

spread of aquatic invasive species, which can severely impact fish habitat by reducing food

sources for fish and outcompeting native fish for limited resources. Movement of water from one

drainage to another is avoided to prevent the transfer of aquatic invasive species and disease.

Road crossings of streams are designed and located to minimize impacts to fish movement.

Where feasible, existing road crossings identified as restricting fish passage will be modified.

During wildfire suppression activities, fire retardant would not be aerially applied within 300

feet of waterbodies to prevent chemicals from reaching waters. Due to the difficulty in judging

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish
838 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

distance from the air and the possibility of chemical drift, some fire retardant could get into the

water. The potential for adverse impacts would depend on the amounts and types of chemicals

to which fish are exposed.

Wild horses can indirectly impact fish habitats by contributing to soil erosion through trampling

of stream banks and adjacent trails. However, wild horse numbers do not change among the

alternatives, thus there would be no differences in anticipated impacts.

Impacts to fish species and habitat from air quality, geologic, and cave and karst resource

management would not vary by alternative. No lands identified for disposal contain fish habitat;

therefore impacts would not be expected under any alternatives.

4.4.5.3.2. Alternative A

4.4.5.3.2.1. Program Management

Under Alternative A, the Lander Field Office can, on a case-by-case basis, apply seasonal

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities that would adversely impact fish spawning and

manage human-caused barriers to fish passage. Actions that would result in the removal or

depletion of water from fish-bearing streams can be authorized. Current management prohibits

surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of a riparian-wetland area, and BMPs that limit offsite

soil erosion or runoff are typically applied to all surface-disturbing activities.

4.4.5.3.2.2. Resources

Soil disturbance and erosion can adversely impact water quality. Fugitive dust from wind erosion

of surfaces exposed by road building, oil and gas development, fire and fuels management,

mining, and concentrated livestock grazing can enter surface water directly or be washed into it

during precipitation events. Once in the water, this dust adds to the sediment load in the stream

and can impact fish populations, both directly and indirectly. Increased sediment can directly

suffocate fish eggs or impair the overall production of macroinvertebrates upon which mature fish

depend. Other pollutants suspended in the air that alter the chemistry of precipitation (i.e., acid

rain) can result in similar impacts to fish habitat. Soil erosion from surface-disturbing activities

leads to sediment loading as described above and can also change water chemistry by leaching

minerals into the water that have been exposed by mining or other surface disturbances. Under

Alternative A, cumulative short-term surface disturbance in the planning area is expected to be

approximately 52,591 acres, and cumulative long-term surface disturbance would be 12,439 acres

during the planning period.

Alternative A does not specifically manage lands with wilderness characteristics. Small drainages

are present on these lands, but they are not known to support fish.

Alternative A forest management actions could impact fish species through the generation of

additional sediment, as described above, and through surface disturbance associated with the

construction of access roads and harvesting techniques. A variety of silviculture practices are

used to meet forest health objectives and the demand for forest products. Alternative A prohibits

clear-cuts on slopes greater than 45 percent or larger than 25 acres, reducing the potential for large

amounts of sediment being generated. Actions on steep slopes that result in large areas devoid

of vegetation (i.e., clear-cuts) would have the greatest potential for accelerated soil erosion that

could add sediment to fish-bearing waterbodies.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 839

Wildfire, and to some degree, prescribed burning, can adversely and beneficially impact fish,

depending on fire intensity. In situations where the fire is intense, temperatures can become high

enough to destroy both plant communities and the soil fertility upon which they depend. This

could produce a large area of little or no vegetative cover, resulting in increased sediment entering

aquatic systems. However, low-intensity fuels reduction burning could beneficially impact fish

by preventing more intense, landscape-level wildfires while retaining enough plant litter to slow

runoff and recycle nutrients to encourage vigorous growth of groundcover. Fire that reduces

plants that require a lot of water, such as conifers and sagebrush, could increase the amount

of water from rain and snow events reaching streams, resulting in beneficial impacts to fish

populations. Approximately 800 acres of treatments to reduce fuels and manage vegetation are

expected to occur each year under Alternative A.

Management actions that alter vegetative communities, whether they be forest/woodland,

grassland/shrubland, or riparian-wetland habitats, can indirectly impact fish species in various

ways. Actions that disturb vegetation can alter plant composition and structure within that

habitat. Loss or alteration of vegetative cover through surface disturbance, wildfire, or

vegetative treatment can change the hydrologic regime of the watershed in which it occurs.

With less vegetation to retain water from precipitation and snowmelt, more surface erosion

occurs and streams tend toward brief high-water events that further erode their banks and add to

sedimentation of the waterbody. As water is quickly released into streams, less is held in reserve

to maintain streamflow during drier periods. Therefore, conversion of habitat results in adverse

impacts both to quality and quantity of water for fish. Loss of shade cover in riparian-wetland

habitats also results in increases in water temperature that can make the adjacent stream unusable

for species such as trout that require colder water. Management actions that maintain healthy

rangelands in their natural condition generally would beneficially impact fish and their habitats.

The introduction or proliferation of INNS might result in little direct impact to fish species.

However, because INNS are typically able to outcompete native plants and establish themselves in

habitat that might otherwise be suitable for colonization by native plant species, they can prevent

the growth of plants better able to retain soil during precipitation events. For example, cheatgrass

is a shallow-rooted INNS that establishes itself quickly in disturbed areas. As a vegetative cover

for holding soil and preventing erosion, it is far less desirable than a more deeply rooted native

grass species. Moreover, the presence of INNS can require the use of herbicides that could alter

water quality or kill fish outright if used near riparian-wetland areas.

Over-utilization of vegetation by certain wildlife species, primarily big game, could adversely

impact fish by contributing to the loss of streamside vegetation necessary to shade water and

maintain water temperatures. Most game fish require colder water temperatures, and heavy

browsing by moose, elk, and deer of willows and other woody species could lead to reduced

shading and increased water temperatures. Over-utilization is often a product of competition

between big game species and domestic livestock or wild horses in localized areas.

Alternative A protections for cultural, paleontological, and visual resources from disturbance

could also have a beneficial impact on fish and fish habitats by preventing surface disturbance that

could contribute to soil erosion and sedimentation.

4.4.5.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Exploration for, or development of, locatable and leasable minerals and/or mineral material

disposals could adversely impact fish and fish habitats by creating surface disturbance, thereby

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish
840 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

contributing to soil erosion and the accompanying sedimentation. Such development could also

introduce contaminants such as hydrocarbons and other chemicals into fish habitats. In addition,

oil and gas development produces water as a byproduct (called produced water) that is often

disposed of on the surface and can flow into fish habitats, changing both the temperature and

chemistry of the water and further contributing to erosion potential. Under Alternative A, most of

the planning area is open to mineral development, and actions associated with these activities are

expected to produce approximately 21,234 acres of short-term disturbance and 9,895 acres of

long-term disturbance on BLM-administered lands during the planning period.

Impacts to fish and their habitats from wind-energy development and ROW/utility corridors

would be similar but would vary among alternatives by the acres open to development. All these

uses involve some level of surface disturbance that could contribute to soil erosion and subsequent

sedimentation. Alternative A opens 2,113,512 acres to wind-energy development, although it is

expected that development would only occur in areas with high potential for wind-energy and

not across the entire planning area. Alternative A opens 2,188,294 acres (91 percent of the

planning area) to ROWs, excludes ROWs on 205,916 acres, and avoids ROWs on 66,099 acres.

Alternative A designates one ROW/utility corridor, the 79-216 national energy corridor, but does

not designate a specific number of acres for this corridor. Alternative A considers oil and gas

leases in the area to the east of Boysen Reservoir on a case-by-case basis which has the potential

of adversely impacting fish and aquatic resources.

Alternative A allows livestock grazing on 2,324,934 acres (97 percent of the planning area)

and manages forage utilization levels and the construction of range improvements such as

fences and water developments on a case-by-case basis. Livestock grazing can adversely impact

fish habitats, both directly and indirectly. If forage utilization levels are not established and

livestock are allowed to concentrate, such as would occur around watering locations, mineral

supplement sites, and along fences, soil-holding vegetation could be lost to improper livestock

grazing management or excessive trampling. In turn, this could compact and erode soil, making

the site prone to soil loss, either by wind or water, and contribute to additional sedimentation of

fish-bearing waterbodies. Heavy grazing use in riparian-wetland areas produces direct erosion

into watercourses, removes stream bank vegetation, and contributes to the desiccation of these

areas and the loss of their water-holding capacity. The loss of capacity to retain water in

riparian-wetlands would contribute to lower water levels in downstream fish habitats during

the drier seasons, which would result in direct adverse impacts to fish and impacts to the

macroinvertebrates and aquatic insects on which fish feed.

Recreation and recreation management could result in a variety of impacts, both adverse and

beneficial, to fish and their habitats. Alternative A designates a total of 2,394,210 acres SRMAs

or ERMAs, with limited restrictions on mineral and realty actions. Restrictions on such activities

would result in indirect beneficial impacts to fish habitat by reducing the potential for surface

disturbance and sedimentation.

Recreational fishing can reduce populations of certain game fish species over a prolonged

period, but this would not be likely to result in the loss or modification of habitat. Other forms

of recreation can adversely impact fish and fish habitats similar to impacts from industrial

uses. Unauthorized establishment of trails, whether by hikers or OHV users, can also result in

soil compaction, erosion, and the generation of fugitive dust with the associated problems of

sedimentation.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 841

Travel management is of particular importance to fish habitat because roads, and to a lesser

degree, trails are often major sources of runoff and sediment. Roads where vehicles must enter

the water to cross the stream would result in more adverse impacts than roads that have culverts

and bridges installed at stream crossings. Alternative A closes 5,923 acres (0.25 percent of the

planning area) to motorized travel, which would beneficially impact fish resources in those areas.

In addition, Alternative A designates open roads and trails on 163,075 acres (7 percent of the

planning area), which would reduce the number of roads and the potential for soil erosion and

sediment entering fish-bearing waterbodies on these lands. Alternative A limits motorized travel

to existing roads and trails on approximately 93 percent of the planning area, which increases the

potential for additional sediment to enter fish habitats.

4.4.5.3.2.4. Special Designations

Lands designated for special management in the planning area beneficially impact fish and fish

habitats because they have more restrictions on activities that can generate surface disturbance

and adversely impact water quality and stream health. Alternative A designates 119,622 acres

(5 percent of the planning area) into nine ACECs that also support fish resources, even though

fish habitat is not the focus for the ACEC designation. For example, management prescriptions

to protect wildlife resources in the Lander Slope and Green Mountain ACECs improve habitat

quality for tributaries of the Popo Agie and Sweetwater rivers, respectively.

There are 55,338 acres within eight WSAs in the planning area; the Sweetwater Canyon WSA is

the only one containing fish resources. The segments eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS support

fish populations, and the Sweetwater River is one of the largest and most productive public

land fisheries in the planning area. Alternative A does not specifically manage these eligible

waterways, but the alternative does manage in accordance with prescriptions for the Lander Slope,

Red Canyon, South Pass, and the NHTs ACECs and the Sweetwater Canyon WSA for all but the

Rock Creek and Warm Springs Creek segments.

4.4.5.3.3. Alternative B

4.4.5.3.3.1. Program Management

Compared to alternatives A and C, Alternative B is generally more protective of resources and

is more restrictive to resource uses.

Alternative B applies seasonal restrictions to surface-disturbing activities within floodplains or

within 1,000 feet (whichever is greater) of fish-bearing streams to protect game and nongame

fish species during spawning, egg incubation, and fry stages. Dates vary by fish species, and

mineral and realty actions would be somewhat restricted from surface-disturbing actions.

Seasonal restrictions would prevent the loss of eggs and young, and beneficially impact local

fish populations.

Alternative B removes human-caused barriers to fish passage where feasible to facilitate genetic

diversity and population stability. Barriers are placed if needed to conserve populations from

hybridization or competition, and fish passages could be built if necessary. These actions would

benefit local fish populations whether on or off of BLM-administered lands.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish
842 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative B prohibits new actions that would result in removal or depletion of water from

fish-bearing streams, and removes existing projects that affect the sustainability of fish

populations. The availability of water is essential to maintaining fish populations.

4.4.5.3.3.2. Resources

The nature of impacts to fish species and their habitats related to soil erosion are the same

under Alternative B as Alternative A, except that the intensity of impacts would differ. Under

Alternative B, cumulative short-term surface disturbance for the planning period is expected to be

approximately 74,689 acres, or approximately 30 percent more acres than Alternative A. The

increase in short-term disturbance primarily derives from an increase in vegetation treatments,

including forest products, which can result in both adverse and beneficial impacts to fish habitats.

Anticipated cumulative long-term surface disturbance is 7,502 acres, or approximately 40 percent

fewer acres than Alternative A.

Alternative B closes 5,490 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics to motorized and

mechanized travel. This action would beneficially impact fish and fish habitats downstream from

those lands through reduced potential for increased sedimentation from surface disturbance.

Forest management under Alternative B prohibits the use of harvest techniques that create

clear-cuts. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts to fish and fish habitats than

Alternative A, because soil erosion, vegetative cover loss, and road construction associated with

clear-cuts would not occur. Soil erosion would likely occur from the use of other silviculture

practices, but soil loss and potential sedimentation in nearby waterbodies would be reduced

by eliminating clear-cuts.

Adverse and beneficial impacts to fish habitats from wildfire and fuels treatments under

Alternative B would be the same as under Alternative A. However, 2,500 acres per year are

expected to be treated under Alternative B, more than triple the projected 800 acres per year under

Alternative A, increasing the potential for beneficial and adverse impacts over a larger area.

Under Alternative B, management actions that disturb vegetation communities could indirectly

impact fish species as described for Alternative A. The mechanism of impact is the same under

each alternative; however, differences in impact intensity would vary, primarily with the resource

uses that alter these habitat types. See the vegetation subsections of the Biological Resources

section for a more detailed discussion of vegetation management.

Alternative B INNS treatment would be the same as under Alternative A, except that Alternative

B includes greater efforts to identify and prioritize areas with substantial infestations and treat

those areas with a more integrated approach. This includes such techniques as livestock flushing

and stricter controls on authorized activities that can spread INNS from one area to another. Under

this alternative, annual brome species would be treated throughout the planning area instead of in

specific areas, as would be the case under Alternative A. To the extent that these additional efforts

would likely reduce impacts to fish habitats by providing better protection from sedimentation,

impacts would be beneficial. However, a more aggressive approach to INNS control could also

increase the potential for contamination of fish-bearing streams through herbicide application.

Wildlife over-utilization of woody species would likely occur in situations where there is

increased competition between big game and livestock for forage. Under Alternative B, forage

allocations for livestock and wild horses are adjusted as necessary to meet the forage requirements

for big game, alleviating the need for forage competition. Such an adjustment should reduce the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 843

potential for adverse impacts to fish habitats from reduced stream bank shading that increases

water temperatures.

Under Alternative B, protection for cultural, paleontological, and visual resources is expanded

considerably to include entire landscapes or viewsheds around important resources. These

expanded protections close lands to most surface-disturbing activities and would beneficially

impact fish habitats by reducing the potential for soil erosion and attendant sedimentation into

streams in those areas.

4.4.5.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B places more constraints on the exploration and development of locatable and

leasable minerals and mineral material disposals for the purpose of protecting other resource

values, including fish-bearing habitats. Alternative B opens substantially fewer acres in the

planning area to mineral development than Alternative A, which would reduce the potential for

impacts from surface disturbance and stream sedimentation associated with mineral activities.

More acres of protection and fewer acres of potential surface disturbance would beneficially

impact fish and their habitats. During the planning period, Alternative B is expected to produce

approximately 16,549 acres of short-term disturbance on BLM-administered lands and 7,378

acres of long-term disturbance from mineral development. Alternative B closes the area to the

east of Boysen Reservoir to oil and gas leasing which is more beneficial to fish and aquatic

resources than Alternative A.

Alternative B opens 41,372 acres (approximately 2 percent of the planning area) to wind-energy

development in the planning area compared to the 2,113,512 acres open under Alternative

A. Alternative B opens less land to ROWs (159,962 acres) and manages more land as ROW

exclusion areas (1,919,029 acres) or ROW avoidance areas (315,962 acres) than Alternative A.

Alternative B designates utility corridors on 15,364 acres to concentrate surface disturbance,

although designating corridors would not necessarily preclude ROW development in other areas.

Alternative B closes more lands to wind-energy and ROW development; therefore, this alternative

would decrease the potential for soil erosion and sediment generated from surface-disturbing

activities to enter streams and adversely impact fish and fish habitat. Alternative B would result in

greater beneficial impacts to fish and fish habitat from management of wind-energy and ROW

development than Alternative A.

Although Alternative B allows for nearly the same number of acres open to livestock grazing

(2,312,095 acres, or 97 percent of the planning area), it requires light utilization (21 to 40

percent) while Alternative A can allow for higher utilization on a case-by-case basis. In addition,

Alternative B closes Sweetwater Canyon to livestock grazing to protect a premier trout fishery and

recreational values. Alternative B also prescribes livestock grazing management primarily without

the use of infrastructure or range improvements such as fences and water developments. These

provisions under Alternative B tend to decrease the likelihood of the adverse impacts described for

Alternative A and would result in indirect beneficial impacts to fish and their habitats by reducing

the potential for sedimentation, loss of streamside vegetation, and loss of water-holding capacity.

Alternative B expands the recreation program to include numerous new recreation management

areas to facilitate various types of recreation use. Alternative B decreases the acreage of the

Lander ERMA by 536,770 acres to provide more specific management in SRMAs and other

ERMAs. Alternative B applies management prescriptions to SRMAs and distinct ERMAs to

enhance their recreation values, including restricting surface uses from mineral and realty actions

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish
844 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

in these areas which would benefit fish resources. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial

impacts to fish habitats from these increased protections than Alternative A.

Alternative B increases the number of acres closed to motorized travel over Alternative A to

71,761 acres (3 percent of the planning area). Alternative B designates open roads and trails

on 193,704 acres (8 percent of the planning area), which is an increase of 1 percent over

Alternative A. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts to fish and fish habitats

than Alternative A by reducing the potential for soil loss and sedimentation from roads and trails.

4.4.5.3.3.4. Special Designations

In addition to the protections afforded to fish and their habitats by special management

designations described under Alternative A, Alternative B creates several new ACECs and

expands protections for many of the existing ACECs. Alternative B designates 1,492,990 acres

(62 percent of the planning area) as ACECs, approximately 11 times more acres than Alternative

A. Increased mineral, realty, and travel management restrictions would beneficially impact fish

populations and habitats within or downstream of these special management areas by protecting

them from adverse impacts associated with surface disturbance.

Alternative B closes all eight WSAs to motorized and mechanized travel, which would reduce

soil erosion from roads and trails and beneficially impact fish resources in these areas. The

premier trout fishery in the Sweetwater River that flows throughout the Sweetwater River WSA

and the drainages of the Popo Agie River would particularly benefit from this management. All

nine eligible segments are recommended as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS and managed to

maintain or enhance the waterways, including fish habitat. Alternative B would result in a greater

beneficial impact than Alternative A, because Alternative B subjects more acres to restrictive

prescriptions that reduce the surface disturbance that can adversely impact fish and their habitats.

4.4.5.3.4. Alternative C

4.4.5.3.4.1. Program Management

Compared to alternatives A and B, Alternative C is generally less protective of resources and less

restrictive to resource uses.

Under Alternative C, seasonal restrictions to protect fish during reproductive periods would be

applied on a case-by-case basis, as would removing human-caused barriers to fish passage and

allowing actions that remove or deplete water from fish-bearing streams. Alternative C would

result in the same impacts as Alternative A, and fewer beneficial impacts to fish and fish habitat

than Alternative B, which applies these management actions in all cases.

4.4.5.3.4.2. Resources

Impacts to fish and fish habitat from fugitive dust, soil erosion or compaction, and excess runoff or

sedimentation of water resources would be likely to increase under Alternative C. Approximately

160,065 acres of cumulative short-term surface disturbance is expected to occur in the planning

area during the planning period, an approximate 200 percent increase over Alternative A and 115

percent increase over Alternative B. Cumulative long-term surface disturbance is expected to be

60,631 acres, or more than 400 percent more acres than Alternative A and more than 700 percent

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 845

more acres than Alternative B. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts from soil

erosion and additional sediment into waterbodies that support fish than alternatives A and B.

Alternative C does not apply special management to the lands with wilderness characteristics.

Impacts to fish and fish habitats downstream of these lands would be the same under Alternative

C as Alternative A, and less beneficial than impacts under Alternative B, which closes the area to

motorized and mechanized travel.

Forest management under Alternative C allows the use of clear-cuts and does not restrict the

number of acres of the cut. In addition, clear-cuts using a cable system or helicopter would be

allowed on slopes in excess of 45 percent. Ground-based logging would be limited to areas with

45 percent slopes or less. Logging on steep slopes would increase the potential for soil loss that

could end up in waterways. Alternative C would result in a greater risk for adverse impacts from

soil loss and additional sediment entering fish-bearing waterbodies than alternatives A and B.

Adverse and beneficial impacts to fish habitats from wildfire and fuels treatments under

Alternative C would be the same as Alternative A. Alternative C is expected to result in 800

treatment acres per year, the same as Alternative A and 1,700 fewer acres than Alternative B.

Similar to the other alternatives, Alternative C management actions that disturb vegetation

communities could indirectly impact fish resources. Impacts from vegetation management under

Alternative C would be the same as Alternative A. The differences in intensity of impacts vary

primarily with resource uses that alter these habitat types. See the vegetation subsections of the

Biological Resources section for a more detailed discussion of vegetation management.

Alternative C treatment of INNS is the same as Alternative A. This approach would be expected

to produce the same level of beneficial impacts to fish and their habitats as Alternative A, but

would result in fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B, which utilizes a more aggressive

approach to treatments.

Over-utilization by wildlife, as described under Alternative A, is most likely to occur in situations

where there is increased competition between big game and livestock for forage. Alternative C

gives priority to livestock in allocation of forage. In times when forage is in short supply (i.e.,

drought years), competition between big game and livestock/wild horses for the remaining forage

would likely increase, increasing the risk of over-utilization of streamside vegetation. Compared

to alternatives A and B, Alternative C increases the potential for adverse impacts to fish habitats

from forage management.

Protections for cultural, paleontological, and visual resources are the same as or less

restrictive than Alternative A, and much less restrictive than Alternative B. Protecting cultural,

paleontological, and visual resources from surface-disturbing activities also protects fish habitats;

because Alternative C affords fewer protections for these resources, it would result in a greater

risk of adverse impacts to fish resources than alternatives A and B.

4.4.5.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C eases some of the constraints under alternatives A and B to protect other resource

values, including fish and their habitats, to promote exploration and development of locatable and

leasable minerals and mineral material disposals. Withdrawals from locatable mineral exploration

would not be pursued and existing withdrawals, except the one for desert yellowhead critical

habitat, are allowed to expire. Fewer restrictions on oil and gas leasing and fewer restrictions on

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish
846 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

minerals exploration and development could increase the likelihood of more surface disturbance

and increase the likelihood of adverse impacts to fish and their habitats. Under Alternative

C, substantially more acres in the planning area are open to mineral development than under

Alternative B and slightly more acres are open than under Alternative A. Actions associated

with these activities on BLM-administered lands are expected to produce approximately 21,302

acres of short-term disturbance and 9,932 acres of long-term disturbance during the planning

period. Short-term and long-term disturbance acres would be approximately the same under

Alternative C as Alternative A and more than Alternative B (32 percent and 46 percent more

acres, respectively). Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to fish and fish habitats

from minerals management than alternatives A and B. Alternative C, like Alternative A, has the

same potential adverse impacts to fish and aquatic resources in the area east of Boysen Reservoir

from oil and gas leasing on a case-by-case basis.

Alternative C opens 2,284,235 acres (95 percent of the planning area) to wind-energy

development, approximately 7 percent more acres than Alternative A and 98 percent more

acres than Alternative B. Similarly, Alternative C opens more lands to ROWs (94 percent of

the planning area) and manages less acres as ROW exclusion or avoidance areas (147,053 and

11,714 acres, respectively) than alternatives A and B. Alternative C designates utility corridors

on 660,908 acres. Alternative C opens more lands to wind-energy and ROW development than

alternatives A and B, and would result in a greater risk of surface-disturbing activities that can

cause soil erosion and stream sedimentation. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts

to fish and fish habitat from wind-energy and ROW development than alternatives A and B.

Alternative C allows for livestock grazing on approximately the same number of acres as

Alternative A. It also allows moderate (41 to 60 percent) utilization, while Alternative A

establishes utilization levels on a case-by-case basis and Alternative B manages for light utilization

(21 to 40 percent). Alternative C also prescribes a more intensive use of infrastructure or range

improvements to manage livestock. The increased use of range improvement projects to manage

livestock can increase the amount of soil disturbance and bare ground from fence and water

development construction and associated trailing and trampling. The provisions in Alternative C

would tend to increase the likelihood of adverse impacts (e.g., trampling, over-utilization, soil

disturbance, sedimentation), increasing the likelihood of adverse impacts to fish and fish habitats.

Potential adverse impacts to fish from recreation management would increase under Alternative

C. Although the number of total acres in specific (not Lander General) SRMAs or ERMAs is

greater (332,055 acres) under Alternative C, proposed restrictions on motorized travel that could

benefit fish habitat are essentially the same or less than those under alternatives A and B.

Travel management under Alternative C is similar to Alternative A. Alternative C closes 451

fewer acres to motorized travel than Alternative A and 66,289 fewer acres than Alternative B.

Alternative C designates open roads and trails on 50,776 acres (2 percent of the planning area),

a decrease of 1 percent from Alternative A and a decrease of 6 percent from Alternative B.

Alternative C would result in a greater potential for adverse impacts to fish and fish habitat than

alternatives A and B by increasing the potential for soil loss and subsequent sedimentation.

4.4.5.3.4.4. Special Designations

As opposed to the protections afforded fish and fish habitats by special management designations

under the other alternatives, Alternative C does not designate any ACECs. Previously designated

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 847

ACECs are open to mineral and realty surface-disturbing actions that can accelerate soil loss and

add sediment to fish-bearing streams, either within or downstream of the area.

Alternative C does not close WSAs to motorized and mechanized travel except in the Dubois

Badlands WSA. The nine eligible segments are not recommended as suitable for inclusion into

the NWSRS and are managed with other resource and resource use prescriptions for the area.

Alternative C includes substantially fewer protections from surface disturbance that would

increase the likelihood of adverse impacts to fish and their habitats within or downstream of these

special management areas. Beneficial impacts to fish habitats as described for alternatives A

and B, would not occur under Alternative C.

4.4.5.3.5. Alternative D

4.4.5.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D applies timing limitations to all surface-disturbing activities that would adversely

impact spawning, egg production, and fry areas in fish-bearing streams. On a case-by-case basis,

Alternative D allows actions that result in the removal or depletion of water from fish-bearing

streams, unless the action would result in the loss of a sustainable fish population. In addition,

human-caused barriers to fish passage are removed on a case-by-case basis. In areas where

conservation populations are threatened by hybridization or competition with other species, fish

passages are built and barriers are removed or installed to mitigate these threats. Alternative D

would result in slightly fewer adverse impacts to fish and fish habitats than alternatives A and C,

and fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

4.4.5.3.5.2. Resources

Alternative D would result in fewer impacts to fish and their habitat from fugitive dust, soil

erosion or compaction, and excess runoff or sedimentation of water resources than alternatives A

and C, and more than Alternative B. Under Alternative D, cumulative short-term soil disturbance

in the planning area during the planning period is expected to be approximately 53,894 acres,

approximately the same as Alternative A, 28 percent less than Alternative B, and more than 66

percent less than Alternative C. Cumulative long-term surface disturbance is expected to be

approximately 11,453 acres, approximately the same as Alternative A, 35 percent more than

Alternative B, and more than 400 percent less than Alternative C.

Alternative D closes lands with wilderness characteristics in the Little Red Creek Complex

to motorized travel and limits mechanized travel to designated routes. Beneficial impacts to

downstream fish habitats from reducing the potential for soil erosion would be slightly less than

under Alternative B, and greater than under alternatives A and C.

Forest management under Alternative D allows clear-cuts and other harvest techniques in

consideration of other resource values and silvicultural objectives. Similar to alternatives A and

C, Alternative D could increase the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation of fish-bearing

waterbodies from vegetative cover loss related to clear-cuts, cutting on steep slopes, and

associated road building. Alternative D would result in more impacts to fish and fish habitats

from forest management than Alternative B.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish
848 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative D includes more acres of wildfire and fuels treatments than alternatives A and C, but

less than Alternative B. Adverse and beneficial impacts to fish and fish habitats under Alternative

D from fuel and fire management would be the same Alternative A.

Impacts from management actions under Alternative D that disturb vegetation communities and

subsequently adversely impact fish habitat would be similar to those under alternatives A and

C, and less beneficial than those under Alternative B. See the vegetation subsections of the

Biological Resources section for a more detailed discussion of vegetation management.

Alternative D treatment of INNS uses the same approach to controlling the spread of weeds as

Alternative B. Alternative D management is directed at livestock flushing and the adjustment of

terms for any authorized activity believed to contribute to the spread of INNS. Alternatives D

and B would result in greater beneficial impacts to fish and fish habitat than alternatives A and

C, by taking management actions that can reduce the establishment of INNS and reduce the

need for INNS treatment actions.

Alternative D considers forage requirements for big game when making forage allocations

in the planning area. This alternative also extends mule deer seasonal restrictions in crucial

winter habitat to winter habitat. These actions would reduce competition and the potential for

over-utilization of streamside vegetation that can lead to increased water temperatures that

adversely impact fish. Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts to fish and fish

habitats from forage management than alternatives A and C, and a less beneficial impact than

Alternative B.

Management prescriptions to benefit wildlife, viewsheds, and cultural resources that limit surface

disturbance in the Hudson-Atlantic City area, primarily related to mineral and ROW development,

would also benefit fish resources in the area.

Protections for cultural, paleontological, and visual resources are considerably more restrictive

under Alternative D than under Alternative A, much more restrictive than Alternative C, and

less restrictive than Alternative B. Fish habitats in areas of cultural, paleontological, and visual

resources would be protected from the impacts of soil erosion and sedimentation of waterbodies

from surface-disturbing activities.

4.4.5.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Compared to management actions for resource uses under the other alternatives, Alternative D

is very similar to Alternative A, less restrictive than Alternative B, and more restrictive than

Alternative C.

Compared to alternatives A and C, Alternative D opens fewer acres to mineral exploration and

development activities that can cause soil disturbance and increase the potential for sediment to

enter fish-bearing waterbodies. Closing lands to surface-disturbing activities reduces the risk of

adverse impacts from soil loss and movement to fish and their habitats. Actions associated with

these activities on BLM-administered lands during the planning period are expected to produce

approximately 20,302 acres of short-term disturbance, 4 percent less than Alternative A, 23

percent more than Alternative B, and 5 percent less than Alternative C. Long-term disturbance is

estimated at 9,395 acres, 5 percent less than Alternative A, 27 percent more than Alternative B,

and 6 percent less than Alternative C. Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts to

fish than alternatives A and C, and more adverse impacts than Alternative B, which opens the

fewest acres to mineral-related surface-disturbing activities. Like Alternative B, closing the area

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 849

to the east of Boysen Reservoir to oil and gas leasing would beneficially impact fish and aquatic

resources in this area. Required Design Features under Alternative D would provide indirect

benefits to fish by limiting the size and location of disturbances and reduce adverse impacts

associated with under-designed impoundment ponds. Alternative D allows surface disturbance of

produced water which can be either beneficial or adverse, depending upon site-specific factors.

Alternative D opens 224,289 acres (9 percent of the planning area) to wind-energy development,

which is substantially fewer acres than alternatives A and C, and more acres than Alternative

B. Similarly, 19 percent of the planning area is open to ROWs and more acres are managed as

ROW exclusion or avoidance areas (1,215,599 acres and 954,322 acres, respectively) than under

alternatives A and C. Alternative D designates utility corridors on 103,646 acres, approximately

25 percent fewer acres than Alternative C and approximately 2 percent more acres than Alternative

B. Alternative D would result in less risk of soil erosion and stream sedimentation from

wind-energy and ROW development than alternatives A and C, and more risk than Alternative B.

Alternative D’s designated corridor management is more similar to Alternative C than to

alternatives A or B. Therefore, its impacts (both beneficial and adverse) would be similar to

Alternative C but less. Designated corridors can focus surface disturbance in areas to minimize

resource damage from surface disturbance. However, more disturbance may be needed to reach

the corridor and the existence of corridors may make the disturbance larger in one place and thus

with greater potential to adversely impact resources.

Alternative D’s ROW avoidance and exclusion areas will beneficially impact fish habitat but less

so than Alternative B which has more restrictions on ROW development. All alternatives seek to

co-locate new ROWs in existing disturbance.

Alternative D allows livestock grazing on 2,317,368 acres (97 percent of the planning area), 7,566

fewer acres than alternatives A and C, and 5,273 more acres than Alternative B. Alternative D

opens Sweetwater Canyon to grazing, which could result in more adverse impacts to the trout

fishery from the reduction of bank vegetation and increased sedimentation than Alternative B,

which closes the area to livestock grazing. Alternative D closes additional lands in the East

Fork ACEC to grazing, which would beneficially impact fish habitat in the area by eliminating

the impacts of soil loss from grazing activities. Alternative D would allow the use of range

improvements and higher utilization levels when combined with a Comprehensive Grazing

Strategy. The potential for adverse impacts to fish and fish habitats under Alternative D is the

same as under alternatives A and C, but adverse impacts could be offset by better vegetation

management resulting from the grazing strategy. Alternative D would result in more beneficial

impacts to fish and fish habitat from grazing management than alternatives A and C, but more

adverse impacts than Alternative B, which requires lighter utilization levels and uses fewer range

improvements, thus generating less surface disturbance, to manage livestock.

Impacts to fish and fish habitats from recreation management are the same as Alternative B,

except that SRMAs and distinct ERMAs constitute 589,638 fewer acres under Alternative D than

under Alternative B. Mineral, realty, and travel management in these areas is more constrained

under Alternative D than under alternatives A and C, which would have a beneficial impact

on fish resources by reducing soil erosion/loss from these actions. Alternative D would result

in greater beneficial impacts to fish resources than alternatives A and C, and fewer beneficial

impacts than Alternative B.

Travel management under Alternative D closes 26,357 acres (1 percent of the planning area) to

motorized travel, an increase over alternatives A and C of 20,434 and 20,885 acres respectively,

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish
850 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and a decrease of 45,404 acres from Alternative B. Alternative D allows motorized travel on

designated roads and trails on 154,772 acres (6 percent of the planning area), 5 percent less than

Alternative A, 20 percent less than Alternative B, and 200 percent more than Alternative C.

Alternative D would result in less potential for adverse impacts to fish and fish habitat from soil

loss and sedimentation than alternatives A and C, and more potential for adverse impacts than

Alternative B. Under all alternatives, most of the planning area is open to existing roads/trails

and impacts would be the same as described for Alternative A.

4.4.5.3.5.4. Special Designations

The NTMC management limits surface disturbance. Overtime, this will limit loss of vegetation

and erosion, which will be an indirect benefit to fish. This is less protective than under Alternative

B, but more than under Alternative A or C.

Alternative D manages three of the segments found eligible under the NSWSR as suitable, which

is less beneficial to fish than Alternative B, but more beneficial than either Alternative A or C.

Alternative D designates 243,838 acres (10 percent of the planning area) into eight ACECs, 5

percent more of the planning area than Alternative A, and 52 percent less than Alternative B.

There are no ACECs proposed under Alternative C. ACECs support habitat for fish, although fish

are not the primary reason for the special designation. Constraints for resource uses related to

mineral, realty, and travel management authorizations in ACECs are more restrictive of activities

that cause soil erosion that can lead to increased sediment loads in fish-bearing waterbodies.

Alternative D is less restrictive than Alternative B, but more restrictive than Alternative A.

Alternative D would decrease the likelihood of disturbance to fish and fish habitat that could occur

under Alternative C, which does not designate any ACECs or special management areas.

Alternative D closes more WSA acres to motorized travel or designates open roads/trails on

more acres than alternatives A and C, which would decrease the potential for adverse impacts

from additional sediment entering fish habitats. Alternative D recommends eligible segments on

Baldwin Creek, Sweetwater River, and Warm Springs Creek Segment 1, as suitable for inclusion

in the NWSRS and manages them to maintain or enhance the segment, including fish habitat.

The fish populations and habitat associated with these segments would benefit from management

that limits surface disturbance that could contribute sediment to the waterway, impacting

macroinvertebrate production and altering streamside vegetation.

Overall, Alternative D management of special designation would result in greater beneficial

impacts to fish resources than alternatives A and C, and fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative

B.

4.4.6. Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife

Wildlife habitat is found on almost every acre of land in the planning area. It is anticipated

that most activities on public lands have the potential to adversely or beneficially impact

wildlife. Wildlife health is directly related to overall ecosystem health, habitat abundance,

habitat fragmentation, and wildlife security provided; therefore, most resource management

actions would result in at least an indirect impact to wildlife. Impacts to wildlife species are

generally described as the loss, degradation, or fragmentation of habitat or key habitat features;

the disturbance/disruption of wildlife during sensitive time periods; or direct animal mortality.

Management actions that impact wildlife and their habitats include resource uses that result in

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 851

surface disturbance and disruptive activities, such as mineral development, lands and realty

actions, livestock grazing projects, fire, recreation, and vehicle travel. Management actions with

potential to enhance wildlife habitat include management of soils, water, vegetation, special status

species habitat, and special management areas.

Wildlife populations can fluctuate in response to natural factors such as cycles in the abundance

of prey base or extremes in seasonal weather; therefore, it can be difficult to determine whether

impacts to wildlife result from specific management actions or from population changes caused

by these natural factors. In most cases, it is a combination of these factors.

4.4.6.1. Summary of Impacts

Authorized activities that disturb soil, remove vegetation, and result in habitat loss, modification,

or fragmentation adversely impact wildlife. Actions that affect breeding and birthing activities,

cause direct mortality, or cause animals undue stress or energy expenditures also adversely impact

wildlife. Alternative B provides the greatest protection from surface-disturbing activities and

disruptive activities, and therefore would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to wildlife and

their habitats. Conversely, Alternative C is the least restrictive and provides the least amount

of protection, and therefore would result in the greatest potential to adversely impact wildlife

resources. Alternative D is similar in many respects to Alternative A, but Alternative D includes

additional management actions that increase habitat protection in areas important to wildlife and

other resources, particularly for special status wildlife species and in special designation areas.

4.4.6.2. Methods and Assumptions

Analyses of impacts to wildlife resources assess whether actions could result in loss, degradation,

or modification of wildlife habitat and assess actions that could improve or enhance habitat.

Impact analyses are based on Interdisciplinary Team knowledge of resources in the planning area,

review of existing literature, and the professional judgment of BLM and cooperating agency

experts. Impacts are quantified where possible, but in the absence of quantitative data, best

professional judgment is used. Acres and percentages described are approximations and impacts

are described using ranges of potential impacts, or in qualitative terms, if appropriate.

Surface-disturbing activities and other actions that remove vegetation, disturb soil, and change

habitat characteristics, alter habitat quality and indirectly impact wildlife. Indirect impacts to

wildlife also result from actions that alter habitats that make them unsuitable for future habitation

by wildlife species. Limitations on new disturbances will beneficially impact wildlife and their

habitat.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● The BLM would continue to manage wildlife habitats in coordination with the WGFD, which

is responsible for managing wildlife populations.

● Impacts to wildlife species are based primarily on potential impacts to BLM-managed

habitats. For each alternative, changes to vegetation types, either in quantity, quality, or

increased fragmentation, are compared to baseline conditions. Adverse and beneficial impacts

to vegetation types (i.e., wildlife habitats) are assumed to have a corresponding adverse or

beneficial impact to wildlife species.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
852 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Ground-disturbing activities could lead to modification (beneficial or adverse) of habitat

and/or loss or gain of individuals, depending on the amount of area disturbed, the species

affected, and the locations of the disturbances.

● Changes in habitat quality could lead to direct impacts and could cumulatively impact species

survival.

● The exact locations of future surface-disturbing activities cannot be predicted at the RMP

level. For analysis purposes, surface-disturbing activities are assumed to occur in vegetation

types in proportion to their availability in the planning area. Impact acreage for vegetation

types are not absolute, but serve as a relative comparison among alternatives. Impacts from

oil and gas development activities are assumed to occur in areas of high and moderate

oil and gas potential.

● Disturbance impacts to wildlife are evaluated by comparison to current management practices

in the planning area; increased protections in time or space result in beneficial impacts,

reduced protections result in adverse impacts.

● In most cases, disturbance of any component of a species habitat is detrimental, with the

degree of detriment depending on the importance of the habitat component to the maintenance

of the population.

● Prohibiting surface disturbance or occupancy is more restrictive and provides more protection

for wildlife than avoiding surface disturbance or occupancy.

● Disruptive activities displace wildlife, although some wildlife species would adapt to the

disruptions.

● Diverse and optimal habitats foster healthy, abundant, and diverse biological communities.

● Disturbance or disruptive activities during sensitive periods can adversely impact wildlife.

● The more acreage of habitat protected from fragmentation, the greater the beneficial impact to

big game and other wildlife species.

● Management actions aimed at benefiting specific wildlife species can result in adverse or

beneficial impacts to other wildlife species. Management actions that beneficially impact one

wildlife species could adversely impact another.

● The potential for adverse and beneficial impacts to wildlife forage and hiding cover is

expected to be commensurate with the level of forage utilization from livestock grazing.

● Changing or altering livestock grazing patterns could beneficially or adversely impact wildlife

habitat and its use.

● Alternatives that provide the greatest protection of existing wildlife water sources are

anticipated to result in the greatest beneficial impact to wildlife.

● The higher the road density in the planning area, the greater the potential to degrade the

quality of adjacent wildlife habitat. The greatest impact comes with the initial introduction of

roads to unfragmented areas. A secondary impact is the introduction of INNS into new areas.

● OHV use in high-priority habitats or during sensitive periods can adversely impact wildlife.

● 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.

● Substantial modifications to habitat suitability can impact the survivability and viability of

populations (e.g., higher winter mortality and reduced reproductive success).

● Crucial winter ranges, parturition areas, and migration routes are critically important wildlife

habitat.

● There is sufficient habitat to maintain current WGFD herd unit objectives.

● Success of mitigation depends on specific protective measures, past results, and the

assumption that mitigation measures are properly implemented.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 853

● The rate of habitat fragmentation from development/subdivision of private lands around

Dubois and Lander will continue, which would adversely impact the quality and quantity of

wildlife habitat in these areas and increase the importance of intermingled public lands.

● The rate of fencing on private lands would continue or increase during the planning period.

● Fencing can be an obstacle and/or potential hazard to big game movement and can adversely

impact greater sage-grouse and other species.

● Water developments can be a tool to improve grazing practices and improve habitat, but can

expand adverse impacts from grazing to new areas.

● Natural variability in wildlife health, population levels, and habitat conditions would continue.

Periods of mild or severe weather and outbreaks of wildlife disease or insects/diseases that

impact habitat could impact wildlife population levels.

● Landscape-level fire events, regardless of cause, would impact habitat and wildlife population

levels.

4.4.6.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.4.6.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats under the alternatives would be similar, but the

intensity of impacts would vary by alternative. Impacts to wildlife from program management;

other resources, including vegetation, wild horses, and cultural; and resource uses such as

minerals, ROWs, recreation and travel management, and livestock grazing management; and

special designations, including ACECs, historic and scenic trails, and WSAs are described under

individual alternatives. Chapter 3 describes the various WGFD statutory wildlife categories

of big game, trophy game, furbearing animals, predatory animals, small game, game birds,

migratory game birds, and nongame, including raptors, neotropical migrants, mammals, reptiles,

and amphibians. Because impacts would occur in habitats occupied by animals in multiple

statutory categories, impacts are addressed collectively, with specific categories identified where

appropriate.

Changes to or stressors (e.g., increased human presence and noise) on habitat components such

as vegetation, water, and soil would be the most likely to result in direct and indirect impacts

to wildlife. Surface-disturbing activities cause habitat fragmentation, loss, or displacement,

depending on the types, amounts, and locations of activities.

Impacts to wildlife populations could result from the loss of habitats or key habitat features such

as winter range, nest sites, or migration corridors. Changing habitat characteristics or quality can

cause wildlife to avoid the area, resulting in a loss of available habitat. Disturbed lands not

adequately reclaimed, fire management, road construction and use, facility construction and

placement, field facility maintenance, ROW construction, range improvements, and wildlife

avoidance areas around these disturbances can result in habitat loss. As the acreage of surface

disturbance and level of human activity increases, the quality and quantity of wildlife habitats

would likely be reduced. Seclusion areas for wildlife would become smaller and more dispersed

in these areas, which could lead to a decrease in wildlife populations as a result of habitat

loss. Areas with many access roads and surface disturbances could disrupt big game migration

corridors that link crucial habitats. Migration routes could be altered or eliminated, changing

some traditional wildlife use patterns on a regional level.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
854 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Habitat fragmentation occurs when a contiguous habitat is intersected, divided, or segmented

by disturbing activities, resulting in less usable range, and the disruption in movement among

seasonal habitats, transitional areas, and parturition areas. Fragmentation also results in the

isolation of smaller, less mobile species; a loss of genetic integrity with species or populations; and

an increase in abundance of habitat generalists that are characteristic of disturbed environments,

such as predators and parasites (Harris 1984). Linear features such as roads and pipelines can

fragment habitats and can act as barriers for some species.

Displacement from surface disturbance or disruptive activities moves animals into less desirable

habitat and/or increases the competition for available forage with other wildlife species and

livestock. In many areas, displacement results in wildlife using private agricultural 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.

Impacts of human activity to big game and severe winter range include habitat and forage loss

caused by surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities at any time of the year. Indirect

impacts to wildlife occur from displacement and physiological stress from human presence and

activity during sensitive life stages. A fleeing or displaced animal incurs additional impacts

through loss of food intake and potential displacement to a poorer (lower) quality habitat. Chronic

or continuous disturbance could result in reduced animal fitness and reproductive potential

(Geist et al. 1978).

Wildlife can also be disturbed by human activities, potentially causing wildlife to abandon a nest,

den, or home range. Disturbance during sensitive periods (e.g., winter and nesting) is known to

adversely impact wildlife. Human activities, such as OHV use, recreation, energy facility O&M,

and noise from equipment, impact some wildlife species. These activities are considered to be

particularly detrimental to breeding and nesting raptors and wintering big game. Disturbance

impacts range from short-term displacement and shifts in activities to long-term abandonment of

home ranges (Yarmoloy et al. 1988, Miller et al. 1998, Connelly et al. 2000).

Some species of wildlife are more sensitive to noise and disturbance than other species, while

other species habituate to certain types of noise or disturbance. Bowles (Bowles 1995) indicates

that wildlife can abandon habitats or expend energy as a result of disturbance and can continue to

exhibit a response even when they have adapted to the disturbance. Depending on the intensity

and frequency of occurrence of the disturbance, incurring energetic expense due to human

disturbance during critical periods (e.g., winter) can impact wildlife survival and productivity.

The USFWS (USFWS 2002a) identifies courtship, nest construction, incubation, and early

brooding as higher risk periods in the life-cycles of raptors when adults are more prone to

abandon nests due to disturbance. The USFWS (USFWS 2002a) also indicates that human

activities resulting in disturbance to raptors can cause population declines. In general, the more

area subject to noise and disturbances from human activities or the higher the density of these

activities, the more disturbance and adverse impacts to wildlife.

Because the precise locations of surface disturbances under the alternatives is unknown and

because wildlife species utilize more than one vegetation type, the degree of impacts to

wildlife from surface disturbance are anticipated to be directly related to the amount of surface

disturbance. Long-term surface disturbance accounts for reclamation of some lands following

short-term disturbance. Although proper reclamation can restore habitats and reduce long-term

surface disturbance acreage, reclamation can have limited effectiveness in restoring suitable

habitat, and the locations of permanent facilities (e.g., roads and well pads) adjacent to reclaimed

areas can reduce the utility of reclaimed habitats.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 855

Under all alternatives, impacts to wildlife from management of air quality and geologic, water,

cave and karst, and visual resources would not vary by alternative. To the extent that management

is directed at protecting these resources, there would be a secondary beneficial impact to wildlife

and wildlife habitat. See resource-specific sections of this chapter for a description of impacts

from these management actions under each alternative.

Resources

Soil

Surface disturbance temporarily or permanently removes wildlife habitats and can degrade the

quality of adjacent habitats. For example, erosion and runoff from surface disturbance can

extend onto adjacent habitats, causing additional soil erosion. Moreover, dust from surface

disturbance can cover adjacent vegetation, thereby reducing photosynthesis and/or the palatability

of vegetation. Depending on the intensity of degradation, season, and health condition of wildlife

using the habitats, reductions in habitat quality can result in short-term and long-term impacts

to wildlife. Surface-disturbing actions typically require BMPs to avoid or minimize impacts to

soil resources and, ultimately, to habitats. Temporary protective surface treatments can have a

beneficial impact on steep slopes or on soils with high potential for water or wind erosion because

these areas are more difficult and often take more time to reclaim compared to other areas. All

alternatives prohibit or avoid surface disturbance on steep slopes, with the degree of slope varying

by alternative. Avoiding disturbance on slopes would provide a secondary beneficial impact to

wildlife by limiting the amount of habitat available for surface-disturbing activities. Once surface

disturbance occurs, timely reclamation is important to avoid or minimize soil erosion and the

spread of INNS. The longer it takes to restore disturbed areas, the greater the adverse impact

to wildlife.

Protection of soil resources has a direct beneficial impact on the production of vegetative

resources on which wildlife depend for their habitat requirements. Under all alternatives,

management actions that limit soil disturbance would beneficially impact wildlife and actions

that disturb soil and remove vegetation would adversely impact wildlife and their habitats,

unless vegetative treatments are performed to enhance habitat for a specific species. These

impacts would affect wildlife in all statutory categories. Actions that disturb soil are discussed

in resource-specific sections of this chapter.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Habitats within areas considered to contain wilderness characteristics support suitable

habitat for myriad wildlife species including grassland/shrubland-, forest/woodland-, and

riparian-wetland-obligate species. Most importantly, these lands contain winter range for part of

the Whiskey Mountain bighorn sheep herd.

Fire and Fuels

Prescribed fire and wildfire can result in short-term and long-term impacts to wildlife. Wildland

fire can kill less-mobile wildlife, such as small game, ground-nesting birds, nongame mammals,

and reptiles, that are not able to avoid the path of the fire. Wildland fire can cause short-term

animal displacement, primarily to big game and trophy game species, and result in short-term or

long-term habitat loss, depending on the types of vegetation removed and severity of the fire. In

some cases, wildland fire has the potential to burn exceptionally hot, resulting in soil sterilization.

Sterilization of soils could delay vegetation establishment on the site for many years, resulting in

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
856 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

long-term loss of wildlife habitat. The removal of vegetative hiding cover, loss of forage, and

loss of habitat from wildland fires would directly impact raptors, game birds, small game, and

neotropical migrant bird species. The BLM generally uses prescribed fire outside the nesting

season, limiting direct impacts to nesting birds.

Wildland fire can reduce dense understory in forest systems, which has mixed values for various

species of wildlife. Fire-sensitive vegetation such as bitterbrush, which is an important browse

species for big game, is often killed and its composition in the plant community reduced.

Historically, less-intense wildland fire that did not affect entire wildlife populations created

mosaics, resulting in variability in the vegetation seral stage, species composition, vertical

stratification, and herbaceous understory. This situation beneficially impacts species that prefer

open habitats, such as mountain bluebirds. Periodic wildland fire can rejuvenate over-mature,

decadent shrub communities, improving the palatability and age class diversity of the shrubs.

Over the long term, wildland fire can generally improve habitat conditions for most wildlife

species by releasing soil nutrients, reducing fuel loads, or setting back species such as trees that

might be encroaching into other habitats such as grasslands and shrublands. Wildland fire would

reduce dense understory that has mixed values for various species of wildlife. In vegetative

climax communities, wildland fire would return the vegetative community to an earlier stage of

succession, increasing forage and cover for a greater diversity of wildlife. Wildland fire can

remove excess dead and dying vegetation, reduce hiding cover for prey species, and reduce

potential thermal cover in winter. However, post-fire log and limb fall would increase horizontal

cover and could produce snags important for nesting birds in the long term. The extent of impacts

to wildlife depends on the extent of change in habitat structure and species composition caused

by the wildland fire. Landscape-level wildfire could reduce vegetation and habitat across large

expanses, which would displace many species of wildlife for the long term, if not permanently.

Fire-line construction, use of heavy equipment, and other fire suppression activities could damage

or destroy vegetation and wildlife habitat. For example, using heavy equipment to construct

fire lines can cause habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. Timely rehabilitation from

this damage is important to maintaining the quality of wildlife habitats. If rehabilitation is not

completed, fire suppression activities can cause erosion or INNS spread, which would result in

long-term adverse impacts to wildlife habitat.

Vegetation

Forest management actions can 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 impact these

species, depending on whether the action is a harvest or thinning, where the access roads are

constructed, the types of equipment used, and the rate of habitat rehabilitation. The effectiveness

of elk habitat in forested habitats declines with increased road densities. Forest and woodland

habitats are used by a myriad of species from each wildlife statutory category and management

actions to meet forest health objectives could result in habitat loss and fragmentation, displacement

of animals, disturbances from noise, and increased impacts from vehicular traffic. Silvicultural

practices in forest and woodland habitats can adversely impact black bears and mountain lions,

because providing habitat for these species is generally not the focus of the management action.

Management practices designed to alter or set back the seral stage of the forest community

could increase wildlife species diversity and richness, depending on different species’ habitat

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 857

requirements. Species that require late seral stage habitat would lose habitat and be displaced,

while species that require early to mid seral stage habitat would benefit from increased range.

Under all alternatives, aspen regeneration is promoted throughout the planning area using a

variety of treatment methods to enhance wildlife habitat and improve overall ecological health.

Aspen stands are found primarily in the Green Mountain, Dubois, and Lander Slope/South Pass

areas and along Beaver Rim, and overlap with high-value big game, trophy game, game bird,

and neotropical migrant habitat. These communities provide important forage and cover habitat,

and management actions that focus on improving aspen health and regeneration would have

beneficial impacts on wildlife in each statutory class. 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 migrants.

Manipulation of juniper and other noncommercial tree species and noncommercial harvest of

minor wood products such as poles, firewood, and wildings would result in variable impacts to

wildlife species. These impacts, including short-term disturbance of wildlife, minor modification

of habitat due to removal of trees or wood products, and other general disruptions caused by

temporary human presence, would result in minimal adverse impacts to wildlife resources.

Properly mitigated timber harvests can improve big game habitat in the long term by improving

forest age class diversity and distribution, edge effect, and forage community diversity.

Conversely, timber harvests can take important habitat components (e.g., snags, dead and down

components, and the largest trees) out of the ecosystem and result in adverse impacts to species

that depend on these components. Amphibians, reptiles, and other smaller animals depend on

these habitat components for survival. Thinning practices generally result in adverse impacts to

species such as the snowshoe hare.

Grasslands and shrublands would be managed to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands and for specific plant species and vegetative attributes (plant density, composition,

cover, and diversity), which would directly impact wildlife habitat. Plant communities lacking a

balance of herbaceous and woody components would adversely impact wildlife in the planning

area, because most species depend on sagebrush/grass and mixed shrub communities, at least

seasonally, to meet part of their forage, cover, or migration needs.

Under all alternatives, the BLM would utilize an integrated management approach, including

mechanical and chemical treatment, fire, and grazing to manipulate vegetative communities to

achieve wildlife habitat objectives. Maintenance of contiguous habitat blocks and the corridors

between them would have beneficial impacts on many wildlife species that depend on large

areas of habitat to carry out their life history requirements. In addition, corridors between

habitat blocks are important for seasonal movements of wildlife. Appropriate reclamation would

restore biological integrity and habitat function lost as a result of the initial surface-disturbing

activity; however, returning a sagebrush site to predisturbance condition can take 30 or more

years. Successful reclamation is needed to reestablish connectivity within previously fragmented

habitats and to achieve and maintain ecosystem function.

Invasive Species and Pest Management

The spread of INNS contributes to the loss or degradation of wildlife habitats. Adverse impacts

to wildlife habitats from INNS would be commensurate with the amount of wildlife habitat

affected. Targeting and eradicating INNS particularly detrimental to certain wildlife habitats

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
858 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

would beneficially impact wildlife using the area. For example, salt cedar is an INNS often found

adjacent to or within water courses and riparian-wetland habitats important to numerous wildlife

species. Actions to prevent and control INNS could reduce, or at least slow, the rate of INNS

increase in the area and the severity of impacts to wildlife habitats. Controlling INNS under

all alternatives would reduce competition with native species important to wildlife habitat and

populations. Improved plant vigor, health, and forage production would maintain or improve

forage production, cover, and vertical structure for wildlife. Increased forage availability and

forage quality (nutrient content) increases wildlife fitness and survival. Controlling the spread of

INNS is necessary to maintain habitats to support wildlife carrying capacities.

Under all alternatives, the required use of certified weed-free forage and mulch would beneficially

impact wildlife by reducing the opportunity for weeds to establish in key habitat features. Working

with stakeholders to control grasshoppers and Mormon crickets would beneficially impact many

wildlife species, particularly mammals, in all statutory categories because infestations can reduce

the amount of vegetation available for forage and cover. Impacts to wildlife from activities such

as herbicide spraying can cause short-term animal displacement from vehicle use and human

presence. Pesticide spraying can also cause short-term animal displacement and a loss of insects

birds use for food. It is expected that insect control efforts would not result in the eradication of

the insect population. Impacts to wildlife from the presence of INNS or INNS control methods

would not vary by alternative.

Riparian-Wetland Areas

Riparian-wetland areas support the greatest biological diversity of all habitats in the planning

area. Therefore, management actions that protect, develop, restore, and improve these areas

would result in direct beneficial impacts to wildlife. Management of riparian-wetland areas to

meet PFC and the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands improves habitat conditions

for various wildlife species, including big game, furbearing animals, small game, migratory

game birds, neotropical migrants, and amphibians. In addition to their importance to wildlife,

riparian-wetland areas are important for livestock and wild horses, and concentrated grazing by all

animals can lead to overuse of these habitats. Actions that improve riparian-wetland PFC would

improve habitats for riparian-wetland-dependent wildlife species, especially via increases in the

quantity and quality of riparian-wetland vegetation. Areas managed to standards greater than the

minimum requirement of PFC would result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife.

Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Species

Impacts to wildlife species resulting from surface-disturbing and disruptive activities

would be addressed through the implementation of mitigation measures and BMPs, such as

timing stipulations and designations of spatial buffers, including those found in the WGFD

Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Important Wildlife Habitats

(WGFD 2009a). These stipulations provide some mitigation for loss of habitat function or habitat

value for wildlife species. Big game are sensitive to human activity, and timing stipulations offer

protection during critical birthing and winter periods. For example, mule deer exhibit a stress

response to disturbances associated with noise and activity up to 0.29 mile from the source

(Frisina 1992). Crucial winter range is considered the “limiting factor” to big game populations,

and modifications to habitat suitability can impact species survivability and viability (e.g., higher

winter mortality and reduced reproductive success), ultimately leading to reductions in population

size. This impact is intensified on lands that are crucial winter range for more than one big game

species and in areas where crucial winter range is in degraded or poor condition.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 859

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities are prohibited within identified big game crucial

winter range from November 15 to April 30 and in big game parturition areas from May 1 to June

30 unless the BLM grants an exception, modification, or waiver. At present, 605,898 acres of

crucial winter range and 27,768 acres of parturition habitat are identified on public land in the

planning area. Raptor nest sites and associated buffers are protected during the nesting period,

with nesting dates and buffer distances varying by alternative. Some raptor species are more

sensitive to disturbance than others and disruptive activities can cause raptors to abandon nests

or chicks, resulting in the loss of that season’s nest production. The BLM would adhere to

fence standards for new fence construction to allow wildlife movement and would remove or

modify existing fences that are a hazard to wildlife where opportunities exist. Impacts to wildlife

would be minimized through appropriate placement of facilities and projects and maintaining

connectivity of large blocks of undisturbed habitat.

The BLM would cooperate with the WGFD and the USFWS to reintroduce wildlife species,

including special status species, into historic or suitable ranges to enhance existing populations or

genetic diversity. In addition, the BLM would seek opportunities to develop wildlife viewing

areas in the planning area.

In addition to the stressors from BLM-permitted activities on game animals (big game, trophy

game, small game, furbearers, and game birds), many of these species are also hunted seasonally.

Pursuit of game animals during hunting seasons can create 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 the sustainable habitat carrying capacity. Adjustments in big game herd objectives would

be recommended to the WGFD when habitat monitoring data indicate adjustments are needed.

The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Services conducts

animal damage control, typically for coyote, red fox, and skunk. Impacts to predatory animals

from control efforts would not vary among the alternatives.

Wildlife and special status species occupy the same habitats; therefore, there is a direct beneficial

impact to wildlife in all statutory categories from actions that conserve habitat for special status

species. All alternatives prohibit surface-disturbing and disruptive activities around greater

sage-grouse leks, with the buffer distance varying by alternative. Protecting habitat from loss or

fragmentation would beneficially impact wildlife species using the same areas. All alternatives

apply a TLS on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in nesting habitats for greater

sage-grouse and mountain plover. The TLS would have beneficial impacts on other birds nesting

in the area. Special status fish management would help protect and improve riparian-wetland

ecosystems essential for wildlife. Actions that minimize impacts from road crossings in fish

habitat and implement management strategies to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic

invasive species would result in indirect beneficial impacts to other wildlife species inhabiting

the riparian-wetland areas. Actions directed at managing for vegetation diversity, managing to

meet or exceed PFC in riparian-wetland areas, and improving sagebrush communities would

beneficially impact all wildlife species.

Wild Horses

Wild horses compete directly with wildlife for water, forage, and habitat on approximately 25

percent of the planning area. The number of wild horses does not vary by alternative. Allowing

horse populations to increase could allow expansion of wild horses into new areas, increasing the

amount of competition between wild horses and wildlife. Higher numbers of wild horses can

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
860 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

displace big game into less suitable habitats or onto private lands. Wild horses also contribute to

riparian-wetland habitat degradation, which reduces the quality or suitability of these habitats

for wildlife species. Wild horses that tend to dominate water sources can force wildlife to find

alternative water sources. This can displace wildlife into lower-quality habitat or force wildlife

to travel farther to find water. Wild horse use of small, isolated desert riparian-wetland systems

can decrease the value of these areas for wildlife as a result of trampling, loafing, and forage

reduction. The capability of these areas to support a diversity of wildlife can be reduced as

vegetative cover, structure, and forage quality and quantity are reduced or altered.

Wild horse gathers would create short-term localized disturbance to wildlife from human activity

related to gathers. Vehicle traffic, helicopter use, wranglers on horseback, and the movements of

the wild horses during gathers would contribute to wildlife stress and displacement. Maintenance

of the wild and free-roaming nature of wild horses would beneficially impact wildlife by

promoting open spaces and minimizing fences, which would result in fewer obstructions to the

movement of wildlife across the landscape.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Management for cultural and paleontological resources provides varying degrees of habitat

protection under the alternatives. Cultural resource protection generally results in beneficial

impacts to wildlife by restricting surface-disturbing activities. Cultural and paleontological

inventories and excavations would result in short-term localized displacement of wildlife and a

short-term loss of habitat at excavation sites. It is expected that adverse impacts associated with

cultural and paleontological resources management would be limited to relatively small areas

and would not vary among the alternatives.

Resource Uses

Minerals

Adverse impacts from mineral exploration and development include the displacement of wildlife

in developed areas, wildlife avoidance of areas around development from noise and human

presence, the reduction in usable habitat, and the disruption of migration corridors that link

seasonal ranges. Adverse impacts would be greater in areas experiencing steady development and

large amounts of surface disturbance. Surface disturbance that results in the loss of sagebrush

habitat would be a long-term adverse impact because of the difficulty of establishing shrubs in

reclamation areas due to the time it takes plants to establish and grow. Under all alternatives, it is

anticipated that approximately 183 acres of long-term disturbance would occur each year from

locatable mineral activities and another 183 acres of long-term disturbance would occur from

mineral material disposals. A pre-FLPMA mineral withdrawal on 3,432 acres in the East Fork

area is not subject to expiration and will be maintained under all alternatives.

Most oil and gas development is expected to occur in areas with high and moderate potential for

both conventional gas and CBNG, primarily in the Lysite and Beaver Creek areas and south

of Jeffrey City. Oil and gas development fractures vegetative communities, changes plant

community structure and diversity, and alters grassland/shrubland landscapes. As the numbers

of wells, roads, and facilities increase, habitats in and near well fields become less suitable

until most mobile animals no longer utilize these areas. Although vegetation and other natural

features might remain physically unaltered, wildlife make proportionately less use of areas near

oil and gas facilities. The WGFD estimates that adverse impacts to pronghorn from oil and gas

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 861

development would occur on at least 170 acres surrounding each well pad (WGFD 2009a). The

greater the mobility and adaptability of wildlife species to human activity and disturbed areas, the

less likely there would be long-term impacts to species populations. However, it is feasible that

big game behavior or populations would be altered in the long term at any level of development.

Animals that remain within the affected zones would be subject 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

habitat fragmentation, further limiting the availability of suitable habitat. An area of intensive

activity or construction would become a barrier when animals cannot or will not cross it to access

otherwise suitable habitat. These impacts would be especially problematic if they occurred in

limited habitat components such as crucial winter ranges and reproductive habitats (WGFD

2009a). Studies have shown that actions involving increased human presence have resulted

in adverse impacts to wildlife populations such as mule deer and greater sage-grouse. Due to

prolonged reclamation time, oil and gas development in low precipitation areas could result in

long-term impacts from habitat loss and fragmentation.

Long-term impacts would occur from habitat fragmentation associated with roads, utility

corridors, construction, and long-term avoidance of development sites and facility locations.

Potential impacts to wildlife would include temporary disturbance in localized areas, temporary

loss of habitat, long-term degradation of habitat, and possible direct mortality of small mammals

or nesting birds.

Oil shale-tar sand leasing is the same under all alternatives because a land use plan amendment

would be required prior to approval. The geothermal RFD did not identify any commercially

viable geothermal potential, and it is expected that there would be no large-scale geothermal

development in the planning area. If geothermal resources were discovered during the drilling of

a gas well, impacts to wildlife would be the same as for drilling and completion of an oil and

gas well, and no additional disturbance would be expected from geothermal leasing activities.

Impacts to wildlife from geothermal development would be the same under all alternatives.

Extraction of phosphate would require stripping of the overburden to reach the phosphate deposit

(strip mining), which would result in large-scale surface disturbance and habitat loss. Phosphate

deposits in the planning area predominantly overlap big game winter range on Lander Slope, in

Red Canyon, on Sheep Mountain, on Schoettlin Mountain, and near the Sweetwater River. If the

BLM leased these areas for phosphate mining, there could be a long-term or permanent loss of

habitat for mule deer and elk from mining operations.

Geophysical projects, particularly those involving the use of vibroseis trucks, can adversely

impact sagebrush habitats by crushing sagebrush plants and understory grass and forb species.

Staking and flagging of project areas, noise generated from vehicles and seismic work, and human

presence could cause wildlife displacement within and adjacent to the project area. The extent of

displacement would depend on the time of year of the activity. Pounding of the ground surface

can disrupt breeding and nesting activities for birds and result in a loss of eggs or chicks. Less

mobile species such as reptiles and nongame mammals can be crushed by the vibroseis plates or

vehicle tires. Truck paths can create trails, thus increasing predator access. Wildlife displacement

would be a short-term adverse impact because wildlife would likely return to the project area once

operations ceased. Impacts from seismic operations would not vary by alternative; however, the

number of acres open to geophysical activities does vary by alternative.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
862 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Mineral material disposals for sand, gravel, moss rock, granite, and limestone can impact

vegetative communities depending on extraction methods for each specific resource. Impacts

include wildlife displacement and disturbance, wildlife avoidance of the larger surrounding area

because of noise and human presence, loss of vegetation, and loss or modification of habitat.

However, limiting the acreage available for mineral material disposal may require longer transport

distances for sand and gravel and other construction materials, potentially increasing the incidence

of wildlife collisions with haul trucks. Salable mineral extraction would result in short-term direct

impacts to wildlife and associated habitat. The level of impacts would depend on the size of the

project area and the importance of the affected habitat to wildlife.

Lands

Lands with important wildlife habitats are considered when making land tenure adjustments in the

planning area. The acquisition of lands would result in a direct beneficial impact to all species

of wildlife because lands under BLM control are not available for subdivision and are subject

to management decisions that consider impacts to wildlife. Land disposals could result in the

long-term loss of habitat for wildlife. Lands identified for disposal have undergone an initial

screening for impacts to wildlife and would be reevaluated before disposal to determine new or

previously unidentified impacts to wildlife or key habitat features. Several parcels identified for

disposal are in or adjacent to WGFD Wildlife Habitat Management Areas (WHMAs), and would

have restrictions for disposal. These restrictions would ensure that disposal lands are managed for

the same values and with similar prescriptions as surrounding lands.

Renewable Energy

Non-wind renewable energy development is considered on a case-by-case basis and wind

energy would be developed consistent with the Wind Energy Programmatic EIS (BLM 2005a).

The EIS provides guidance to consider micrositing alternatives when assessing the impacts of

proposed facilities to wildlife, but does not discuss broader habitat avoidance issues. Because

their footprints are large, wind turbines can cause habitat loss and fragmentation and wildlife

avoidance of the area, resulting in long-term adverse impacts. Turbine blades can pull bat and

avian species into their rotation, causing mortality. In addition, bats are susceptible to internal

injuries and mortality from sudden changes in air pressure generated by turbine blades.

ROWs and Corridors

Impacts to wildlife from ROWs are determined by the location of the action, timing of the

activity, and the success of reclamation of disturbed lands. Routing linear ROWs (e.g., pipelines,

powerlines, and roads) where impacts would be least detrimental would help minimize

fragmentation of sensitive habitats such as winter range, migration corridors, parturition areas,

and nesting habitat. Routing decisions are made after site-specific NEPA analysis, and where

possible, new utilities are placed in existing ROW corridors. However, habitat fragmentation

would still occur as more ROWs are developed or as an area with multiple linear ROWs expands.

Short-term adverse impacts would result from the construction of pipelines, buried fiber-optic

cables, and other subsurface actions; however, proper reclamation would restore some level of

wildlife habitat function. Depending on the soil and vegetation types where actions occur and

the long timeframes required for some disturbed sites to return to predisturbance vegetative

condition, some impacts to wildlife would be long-term. Aboveground ROW actions, such as

communications sites, powerlines, and wind turbines, would result in long-term habitat loss.

These types of permanent structures are particularly hazardous to avian wildlife because of the

potential for collision or electrocution (Erickson et al. 2005).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 863

ROWs and corridors occur in the planning area under all alternatives and could impact wildlife in

various ways. For example, utility poles benefit raptors and other birds by providing perching

or nesting structures; however, these same utility structures also can cause mortality to raptors

through electrocution and collisions (USFWS 2002a). Erecting artificial nest platforms on utility

structures can have beneficial impacts to birds such as osprey, eagles, and hawks, and nest

boxes constructed on utility structures can have beneficial impacts to cavity-nesting birds (e.g.,

bluebirds) and bats (USFWS 2002a). These structures can also adversely impact prey species

because raptors will use utility structures as hunting perches. Reclamation on pipeline corridors

can be difficult where there is uncontrolled grazing on plant seedlings or repeated disturbance

of the site. When these situations occur, disturbances from pipelines would result in long-term

adverse impacts to wildlife habitat.

Livestock Grazing Management

Livestock grazing would result in direct competition with wildlife for forage, water, and space.

Wildlife disturbance or displacement can result from the construction and maintenance of range

improvements. The development of livestock grazing strategies, such as emphasizing the creation

of grass banks, would provide the opportunity to improve or maintain range conditions that

support a diversity of wildlife species. Management of BLM-administered lands to meet Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangelands would result in actions that would balance the impacts of

grazing while sustaining wildlife species and their habitat. Livestock grazing could degrade

wildlife habitats through harvesting of vegetation, changes in plant composition, soil disturbance

and compaction, and INNS transport. Proper management of livestock grazing, deferring grazing

on pastures exposed to wildland fire, and monitoring forage utilization could avoid or minimize

adverse impacts to wildlife. Livestock tend to concentrate in riparian-wetland areas also important

to wildlife, resulting in impacts to the quality and quantity of vegetation available for security

cover and forage. If grazing occurs during the late or post-growing season, vegetation might not

be available for wintering wildlife on crucial winter ranges and for security cover for nesting birds

the following spring. This could lead to increased predation and lower nesting success.

While there could be adverse impacts to some wildlife species from livestock grazing, there could

also be beneficial impacts to other species. Livestock grazing can enhance forage and habitat

conditions for wildlife by increasing the palatability of forage, benefiting all grazing animals.

Livestock grazing practices impact specific species in different ways. Cattle diets overlap to a

high degree with those of elk and bighorn sheep, and domestic sheep diets have a high overlap

with pronghorn and mule deer diets, creating year-round competition for forage among livestock

and big game species. When cattle are removed during winter months from elk crucial winter

range, it eliminates most of the competition for space between these two species during this

critical period. Competition for space between cattle and bighorn sheep is considerably less

because of the steeper and rougher topography sheep inhabit. Winter use by domestic sheep

can cause competition with mule deer and pronghorn on their respective crucial winter ranges.

Conversely, summer and fall cattle use of grasses balances wildlife use on pronghorn and mule

deer crucial winter range, which appears to maintain a more diverse and healthy mixture of

grasses and shrubs in these habitats. Under all alternatives, the BLM continues to manage lands in

the Whiskey Mountain bighorn sheep area in cooperation with the WGFD and the USFS and in

accordance with recommendations of the statewide bighorn/domestic sheep report and Western

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) guidelines (WSWG 2012). Domestic sheep

use would not be authorized in bighorn sheep core herd units to prevent the possibility of disease

transmission to the resident bighorn sheep population.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
864 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Range improvements, such as fencing and water developments, are designed to assist in the

management of livestock grazing distribution and use patterns, which impacts wildlife in various

ways. Under all alternatives, forage supplements used to facilitate livestock distribution must

be safe for wildlife. Wildlife escape ramps will be required in all stock water troughs and tanks

to reduce the potential for drowning by birds and small mammals. Fences may benefit wildlife

habitat by controlling or eliminating livestock grazing in areas important to wildlife, increasing

vegetative cover and forage availability. Existing fences, particularly those that do not conform to

BLM standards for fence construction, create travel barriers, alter distribution patterns, increase

stress and energy loss, and cause injury or death from entanglement. Fences become a larger

concern during periods of deep snow and late in the winter season when animal body condition

is poor. New fences constructed to BLM standards would present the same impacts to wildlife,

but to a lesser degree. Fences create hazards for flying birds, perches for avian predators, and

fragments seasonal habitats. The indirect beneficial impact of fences is the control of appropriate

levels and durations of livestock grazing, which improves health, vigor, cover, and production

of vegetation important to wildlife.

In the immediate vicinity of new water developments, livestock use intensifies and plant harvest

increases. Water developments provide the opportunity to defer or rest certain habitats from

livestock grazing to improve vegetative values that would have beneficial impacts on wildlife

species. Development of offsite water sources could beneficially and adversely impact wildlife.

Development of offsite water in areas lacking water can benefit wildlife by providing additional

water in arid areas. Offsite water can also allow streams and/or water sources to be fenced out,

providing quality wildlife habitat. However, creating additional water sources can increase

livestock use in areas heavily used by wildlife. Increased grazing use can degrade the value of

these habitats wildlife depend on by removing vegetation, altering plant community structure and

composition, trampling of ground-nesting birds or small mammals, and displacement of wildlife.

Recreation and Travel Management

Wildlife can be directly disturbed by recreation activities, potentially causing wildlife to abandon

a nest site or home range. Disturbance during sensitive periods (i.e., winter and nesting) could

adversely impact wildlife populations. The impact from disturbances can be short-term, where

the population could be displaced or shift its activities, or long-term, where the population could

permanently abandon its home range, threatening its viability. Maintenance or improvement of

existing sites or development of new recreation sites would cause short-term displacement of

wildlife in the immediate area. There would be small amounts of habitat disturbed in association

with maintenance and development activities, which would reduce the availability of that habitat.

Because most animal species generally avoid human activities, this could reduce wildlife use of

adjacent areas.

OHV use, mountain bikes, and intensive hiking can disturb wildlife. These activities remove

vegetation, disturb soil, and transport INNS, which degrade wildlife habitats. In addition to

direct impacts of vegetation removal and soil disturbance, the disturbance to wildlife associated

with OHV use comes from the movement and noise of vehicles and riders. Road construction

activities, mineral exploration and extraction, recreation, and vehicle travel can cause noise that

adversely impacts wildlife.

Dispersed recreation activities such as hiking, biking, camping, fishing, hunting, rock climbing,

and sightseeing result in increased human presence and would result in localized impacts to

wildlife species. Human presence and activity result in both direct impacts to wildlife from

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 865

hunting and vehicle collisions, and indirect impacts from wildlife displacement and physiological

stress at any time of the year. Rock climbing on cliff walls that support nesting raptors can cause

nest or chick abandonment from prolonged periods of disturbance.

Transportation routes tend to fragment habitats and can act as barriers to some species, especially

in severe winter conditions. A new road or trail into a previously roadless area would create the

greatest amount of habitat fragmentation and facilitate the pioneering of other roads or trails,

increasing the amount of habitat wildlife avoid and habitat degradation through vegetation loss.

OHV use can alter wildlife seasonal use patterns and migration routes, changing some traditional

use patterns. Wildlife seclusion areas can become smaller and more dispersed in some areas.

Motorized vehicle use decisions that result in increased human presence would result in localized

impacts to wildlife. Impacts include increased wildlife displacement, increased stress during

important periods (e.g., winter and nesting), and habitat degradation.

Motorized over-snow travel on winter range can cause stress to wintering animals. Increasing the

number of transportation routes can increase public access to areas that previously were relatively

inaccessible to vehicles during winter and spring months. Travel management will become more

important during the planning period, because increased demands for the use of public lands

would increase the number of roads and the likelihood of additional proliferation of routes,

legal or not, which would increase adverse impacts to wildlife. Vehicle-wildlife collisions could

increase in areas of high wildlife use and high human activity. Limiting the acreage available for

mineral material disposal may require longer transport distances for sand and gravel and other

construction materials, potentially increasing the incidence of wildlife collisions with haul trucks.

Closure and reclamation of unnecessary roads would reduce fragmentation and restore habitat

integrity, while reducing the potential to disturb wildlife.

Road construction causes habitat loss by removing vegetation and compacting surfaces, which

can promote soil erosion and runoff into wildlife habitats and degrade them. In addition to direct

impacts, roads also contribute to habitat fragmentation and can establish barriers to some wildlife

species. For example, Towry (Towry 1984) indicates that roads generally decrease habitat

quality for mule deer for a distance of 1⁄2 mile either side of the road. Forman et al. (Forman et

al. 2003) acknowledge that ungulates and large carnivores generally avoid buffer areas around

roads. Forman et al. (Forman et al. 2003) identify mortality, habitat loss, and reduced habitat

connectivity as the three ways roads impact wildlife. Wildlife mortality and loss of habitats due to

road construction are direct impacts; vehicle speed and traffic volume generally have increased

wildlife mortality due to vehicle collisions (Forman et al. 2003).

Special Designations

Management prescriptions for ACECs, national historic and scenic trails, WSRs, and WSAs that

reduce or eliminate surface disturbance would beneficially impact wildlife. Protections aimed

at conserving vegetation, limiting surface-disturbing and disruptive activities, and preserving

wilderness characteristics would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife by preventing disruptive

activities in sensitive habitats, and limiting habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation.

BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas, which restricts surface-disturbing

and other disruptive activities and manages for wilderness characteristics on 55,338 acres would

have long-term beneficial impacts on wildlife utilizing habitat in the eight WSAs. Loss or

alteration of wildlife habitat would be minimal because only uses that meet the non-impairment

criteria would be authorized. Conversely, the management of WSAs requires the use of natural

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
866 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

processes to the extent possible and generally does not allow surface-disturbing activities

designed to benefit wildlife habitat, such as vegetative treatments, which could benefit lands in the

WSA. Impacts to wildlife would not vary by alternative except for road and trail closure areas,

which are addressed in the Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management section of this chapter.

Wildlife habitat adjacent to NHTs is also protected from development; however, the distance the

protection extends either side of NHTs varies among the alternatives. Further analysis is provided

under Special Designations.

4.4.6.3.2. Alternative A

4.4.6.3.2.1. Program Management

Management actions under Alternative A include reducing the footprint of surface-disturbing

activities and facilities on a case-by-case basis to reduce adverse impacts to wildlife from habitat

loss. In addition to protecting elk crucial winter range, Alternative A protects 166,525 acres of

general winter range for elk from surface-disturbing and disruptive activities from November

15 to April 30.

Fences would be removed or modified, on a case-by-case basis, to address concerns about habitat

fragmentation and limitations to big game movement. Fencing can impede big game movement

and animals can become entangled in the wires when crossing the fence. Fencing that does not

conform to BLM standards can prevent big game from migrating between seasonal ranges, which

could force animals to use poorer quality habitats or result in animal death. Birds can strike

fences during flight, which typically causes bird mortality. The development of livestock water

projects, including wells, springs, and reservoirs, can beneficially impact wildlife if the water

projects are developed in areas where water is scarce and the development does not result in

undesirable concentrations of livestock. If projects are developed in sensitive or limited habitats,

such as reptile hibernacula, crucial winter range, and parturition areas, the project could result in

the long-term loss of habitat around the project site from concentrated livestock use.

Alternative A considers forage requirements needed to meet big game herd objectives on a

case-by-case basis when making forage allocations. There can be competition for forage among

big game, livestock, and wild horses in areas where animals occupy habitats at the same time or

during years when forage production is limited. Alternative A manages vegetation on big game

crucial winter range or parturition areas on a case-by-case basis to benefit big game species.

When taken, these actions would beneficially impact wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Buffer zones around active raptor nests minimize disturbance impacts to nesting raptors.

Alternative A applies a TLS to prohibit surface-disturbing activity within 3⁄4 mile of raptor

nests from February 1 through July 31, which would protect approximately 301,237 acres

around known raptor nests. Some raptor species are more sensitive to disturbance than others

and might require larger buffers to ensure they aren't disturbed during the nesting period.

Protective buffers help to minimize, but cannot completely prevent, impacts to raptors because

most species are mobile beyond these buffers. The impact from habitat degradation and loss

would be commensurate with the amount of surface disturbance. Alternative A does not avoid

surface-disturbing activities in reptile hibernacula.

Alternative A manages wind-energy development consistent with the Wind Energy Programmatic

EIS ROD (BLM 2005a). Limited or sensitive wildlife habitats such as big game crucial winter

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 867

range and parturition areas, raptor concentration areas, and greater sage-grouse leks and nesting

areas are not specifically excluded from development. Wind turbines and associated infrastructure

could make these habitats unusable to wildlife, which could result in localized population declines.

4.4.6.3.2.2. Resources

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative A does not apply special management prescriptions for lands with wilderness

characteristics. The majority of the lands managed under Alternative A lie within the existing

Whiskey Mountain ACEC and are subject to ACEC management.

Fire and Fuels

It is anticipated that 300 acres per year would be treated through the use of prescribed fire and 500

acres would be treated using mechanical treatment methods to address fuels and fire concerns.

Prescribed fire and mechanical treatments would beneficially and adversely impact wildlife. In

situations where the fire is intense, temperatures could be high enough to destroy both the plants

and the soil fertility on which the plants depend. Fire that removes the majority of timber and

shrubs in habitats would result in long-term adverse impacts due to the length of time it takes

for new timber or shrubs to establish and grow. However, in low-intensity, lower-temperature

fires, plants might be only top-killed and could resprout with greater vigor. Fuels reduction

through low-intensity burning also could beneficially impact wildlife by preventing loss of habitat

from large landscape-level wildfires.

Alternative A allows full suppression strategies for wildland fire, including soil-disturbing

activities, on a case-by-case basis. Full fire suppression in areas of sensitive wildlife habitats

would result in indirect beneficial impacts to wildlife habitat in the short term; however, without

the use of fire to regenerate plant communities, there could be long-term deterioration of wildlife

habitat in full suppression areas. Suppression that includes the use of heavy equipment to

construct fire lines would likely remove topsoil, which can affect a disturbed site’s ability to

reestablish vegetation, resulting in long-term loss of habitat. Vehicles and equipment that disturb

soil can facilitate the establishment or spread of INNS on disturbed sites, reducing habitat quality

for wildlife. Impacts to wildlife would be less if post-fire vegetation seeding is performed and

reclamation is successful.

Fire suppression activities (e.g., vehicles, heavy equipment, pedestrians, and aircraft) could

displace species that are sensitive to disturbance, such as roosting or nesting birds. Fire

suppression activities in fish and amphibian habitats also could harm populations of these species

as a result of the application of toxic fire-fighting chemicals in riparian-wetland areas. In addition,

roads or other surface disturbance associated with fire suppression activities would likely increase

sedimentation rates into riparian-wetland habitats.

Vegetation

Alternative A manages forests and woodlands in response to forest health, wildlife habitat, and

demand for forest products. Forest insect and disease outbreaks are managed on a case-by-case

basis and a variety of silviculture techniques are utilized to manage forest health and protect

resource values, including wildlife habitats. Alternative A restricts clear-cuts to 25 or fewer acres

and prohibits them within 100 feet of riparian-wetland areas. Restricting the size of clear-cuts

would protect the amount of elk security cover that could be affected at any one time and reduce

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
868 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

the potential for soil erosion. The riparian-wetland buffer would capture soil that moves off

treated areas, protecting riparian-wetland habitats for use by wildlife. Areas affected by treatment

would be replanted if vegetation does not regenerate naturally. Forest management practices under

Alternative A would result in short-term adverse impacts to wildlife, but also would result in

long-term beneficial impacts by treating insect and disease outbreaks, protecting riparian-wetland

areas, and replanting affected areas, which ultimately improves habitat for wildlife.

Alternative A limits forest product sales, including sawlogs, posts and poles, firewood, Christmas

trees, and burlwood, to the Green Mountain, Lander Slope/Red Canyon, South Pass, and Dubois

areas. Tree or firewood cutting during sensitive seasonal periods for wildlife (e.g., winter and

nesting) can cause nest abandonment or animal displacement. Timber harvest practices could lead

to short-term impacts from increased human presence and wildlife harassment. Forest product

removal can also increase hunting success by reducing hiding cover. Long-term impacts would

include loss of security and calving cover, and displacement of elk to other portions of the habitat

for long periods. Alternative A timber management activities would improve big game habitat by

improving age class diversity and distribution, edge effect, and forage diversity.

Alternative A manages grasslands and shrublands to achieve the vegetation attributes described

in the NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions. These attributes include the appropriate plant

composition for the site and the pounds of forage the site should produce. Alternative A would

beneficially impact wildlife, because site descriptions include a balance of grasses, forbs, and

shrubs that would provide forage, security, and thermal cover needed for wildlife species in all

statutory categories. On a case-by-case basis, soil and vegetation treatments would be used to

increase rangeland forage production. Historically, treatments have predominantly focused on

increasing grass production that has a beneficial impact on grazing animals including livestock,

wild horses, elk, and bighorn sheep. Increasing grass production could reduce the amount of

shrubs present on the site, which could result in adverse impacts to sagebrush-obligate and other

shrub-obligate species, including small game, game birds, trophy game, reptiles, neotropical

migrants, pronghorn, and mule deer.

Riparian-Wetland Areas

The BLM manages riparian-wetland areas to meet PFC and utilizes various site-specific

management actions to move areas toward PFC where needed. Management actions include

water developments in upland habitats to draw grazing animals away from riparian-wetland areas,

exclusionary fences to eliminate use by livestock, wild horses, and some species of wildlife, and

frequent herding of livestock away from the problem areas. These actions are anticipated to

ultimately result in a riparian-wetland system with increased vegetation and structural diversity,

leading to an increase in abundance and diversity of wildlife, particularly neotropical migrants.

Although this management would improve wildlife habitat, because the PFC assessment

methodology does not incorporate the habitat requirements of wildlife, additional management

might be necessary to ensure that habitats provide conditions suitable to meet the life history

requirements of various wildlife species. Alternative A prohibits surface-disturbing activities

within 500 feet of water and riparian-wetland areas, which would beneficially impact wildlife

by conserving vegetation and valuable habitat for multiple species occurring in or downstream

of these areas.

Fish and Special Status Species

Alternative A allows BLM actions that result in the removal or depletion of water in fish-bearing

streams on a case-by-case basis. There would be adverse impacts if projects are developed that

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 869

substantially reduce water availability needed for wildlife, including amphibians, to meet their

habitat needs.

Alternative A requires, on a case‐by‐case basis, surveys to determine presence or absence of

BLM sensitive species be completed prior to authorizing actions on public land. If species are

present, measures are required to protect the species and limit adverse impacts to their habitat.

Beneficial impacts to other wildlife using these same habitats would occur if mitigation measures

were applied. Surface‐disturbing and disruptive activities are prohibited on or within 1⁄4 mile of

occupied greater sage‐grouse leks and avoided in greater sage‐grouse nesting habitat within 2

miles of occupied leks from February 1 to July 31. This action would provide long-term protection

of 16,283 acres of lek habitat and short-term protection of 794,452 acres of nesting habitat

on public surface. Protections that eliminate habitat loss or restrict activities during sensitive

breeding and birthing periods would result in beneficial impacts to many sagebrush-obligate

wildlife species that use these same habitats. Alternative A management prescriptions do not vary

by greater sage-grouse Core Area or non-Core Area.

Alternative A allows water developments and new fences to be constructed in greater sage-grouse

nesting habitats on a case-by-case basis. Livestock water projects can adversely impact the

quantity of hiding cover available for songbirds and small mammals by facilitating increased

harvest of standing grasses. Development of water can also beneficially impact wildlife by

providing additional watering areas in arid areas. Fences can be hazardous to birds and big

game movement because the animals can strike or become entangled in the fence wires, which

usually results in severe injury or death.

Wild Horses

Alternative A does not specifically establish travel loops to facilitate wild horse viewing, and

considers wild horse movement and genetic diversity for fencing decisions in HMAs. Where

applied, decisions that limit or modify fences in HMAs would beneficially impact wildlife

movement in the same areas.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Alternative A protects cultural and paleontological resources in the Warm Springs Canyon

Flume area, around sacred and TCPs, and in the Beaver Rim and Bison Basin areas from

surface-disturbing activities. Actions that prevent surface disturbance and subsequent habitat loss

near these sites would beneficially impact wildlife. Management of cultural and paleontological

resources that includes excavation would adversely impact wildlife, but that impact would be

minimal (60 acres during the planning period).

4.4.6.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Minerals

Alternative A opens most of the planning area (99 percent) to locatable mineral exploration and

development. Uranium and bentonite have the greatest potential to be present in the planning

area. These minerals are not found throughout the planning area, but are generally limited to the

Lander Slope/Red Canyon, Gas Hills, and Green Mountain areas. Where there are exploration

and mining activities, so would there be adverse impacts to wildlife and their habitats. There is

little opportunity under the 1872 General Mining Law to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts

to wildlife other than for species listed under the ESA. Under Alternative A, mining activities

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
870 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

would result in the loss, fragmentation, and modification of predominantly grassland/shrubland

and forest/woodland habitats, loss of nests and young, mortality of less mobile animals, and

displacement and disturbance from equipment noise, vehicles, and human presence. Alternative

A closes approximately 16,004 acres of big game crucial winter range and 338 acres of big game

parturition habitat to locatable mineral entry. The amount of habitat lost, fragmented, or altered

would depend on the scale of mining activities.

Under Alternative A, the requirement for Plans of Operation for mining activities in the Lander

Slope, Red Canyon, Dubois Badlands, Beaver Rim, Green Mountain, and South Pass Historic

Mining Area, and NHTs ACECs would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife in these areas. A

Plan of Operations gives the BLM some opportunity to mitigate surface disturbance and the

impacts of project timing with the project proponent.

Alternative A withdraws a total of 22,322 acres of federal mineral estate in big game crucial

winter range and elk and bighorn sheep parturition areas to locatable mineral exploration. These

withdrawals would beneficially impact wildlife by ensuring habitat is not lost due to mining

activities. There are two existing locatable mineral withdrawals for 11,040 acres of mineral estate

in the Whiskey Mountain ACEC to protect bighorn sheep crucial winter range. Alternative A

recommends that these withdrawals, implemented in 1990 and 2000 for a period of 20 years, be

extended when they expire. There are three existing withdrawals covering 13,967 acres of surface

and subsurface minerals in the East Fork ACEC. These acres were withdrawn to protect elk and

bighorn sheep winter range and capital investments made by the WGFD in the area. Two of

these withdrawals were implemented in 1953 and 1969 (pre-FLPMA) and do not expire. The

third withdrawal was implemented in 1993 for a period of 20 years and Alternative A pursues an

extension of the withdrawal.

Alternative A opens a total of 2,280,345 acres (95 percent) of public land in planning area to

geothermal leasing and opens 2,380,925 acres (99 percent) of the public land in the planning

area to oil and gas leasing. It is anticipated that approximately 770 acres would be disturbed

each year under Alternative A through oil and gas development activities, 400 acres of which

would be long-term. There would no additional acres disturbed through geothermal leasing

under Alternative A. Alternative A applies a TLS for active raptor nests, big game crucial

winter range, elk winter range, and big game parturition areas, which would result in short-term

beneficial impacts. Alternative A opens 609,631 acres of big game crucial winter range and

big game parturition habitat (25 percent of the planning area), which would result in surface

disturbance from development activities and new road construction; this would adversely

impact big game habitat. Lands open, including crucial winter range and parturition habitat,

are subject to an NSO stipulation, which would result in long-term beneficial impacts to big

game and other wildlife species occupying the same habitats. TLS and NSO stipulations would

protect wildlife from impacts that result in physiological stress and the loss or abandonment of

young or nests. Surface-disturbing activities allowed during the stipulated period would likely

disturb and displace wildlife in the short term. Surface disturbance occurring outside stipulated

period would cause habitat loss and fragmentation in these same habitats, and would result in

long-term adverse impacts.

Large-scale development would result in greater levels of habitat loss and fragmentation because

there would be more roads, pipelines, well sites, and powerlines than with wildcat wells or

isolated small fields. Developments could adversely impact linkages between habitat patches

needed to ensure connectivity of populations. Large-scale habitat loss and fragmentation

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 871

combined with the increased level of human presence, vehicles, and infrastructure could cause

wildlife to avoid the area, which would result in long-term adverse impacts.

Seasonal protections from surface-disturbing and disruptive activities do not apply to the

maintenance and operation of oil and gas wells and facilities unless specifically identified in the

project analysis and applied as a COA on the permit. These activities can stress and disturb

wildlife during sensitive periods (e.g., winter and nesting) and would result in short-term and

long-term adverse impacts. Alternative A closes and reclaims roads determined to be redundant

and that contribute to higher then desired road densities or habitat fragmentation on a case-by-case

basis. Habitat previously lost to road disturbance or avoided by big game, particularly elk, would

be returned to usable habitat. This would result in long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife species

in all statutory categories. Road development for permitted activities in sensitive or limited

habitats (i.e., crucial winter range and parturition areas) can result in long-term habitat loss

and avoidance by wildlife.

Alternative A opens the entire planning area to geophysical activities subject to COAs to protect

wildlife. Areas closed to mineral leasing would likely not be authorized for geophysical activities

due to incompatible resource values.

Alternative A opens a total of 2,240,104 acres (94 percent of the planning area) to phosphate

leasing. It is expected that phosphate leasing and extraction could occur on approximately 42,291

acres identified as having potential for phosphate that are open to leasing. Alternative A closes

phosphate leasing on 154,106 acres of federal mineral estate in ACECs and on lands within 500

feet of riparian-wetland areas. Alternative A opens 372,035 acres of crucial winter range and

157,445 acres of raptor nesting habitat having phosphate leasing potential; this would adversely

impact wildlife if leases were developed. The greatest potential for phosphate development

overlaps crucial winter range for big game, primarily elk and mule deer. The Lander Slope,

Sheep Mountain, and Schoettlin Mountain areas support large concentrations of wintering elk

and mule deer, and impacts from phosphate development would severely reduce the amount of

crucial winter range available to support these herds. Development of leases in crucial winter

range would result in the long-term, if not permanent, loss of habitat because the area would be

stripped of vegetation and soil. Elk and mule deer populations would likely decline with the

loss of suitable habitat. Closing the Red Canyon ACEC to mineral leasing would benefit elk

and mule deer using crucial winter range and wildlife using riparian-wetland habitats in the

area. Alternative A management of phosphate leasing in the Lander Slope ACEC offers some

protections, but Alternative A does not close the area to phosphate leasing.

Alternative A opens 2,165,196 surface acres (90 percent of the planing area) to mineral material

disposals. Of these acres, 494,892 overlap big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat,

and 278,268 acres are in raptor nesting habitats. Alternative A closes 229,014 acres to mineral

material disposals, primarily in riparian-wetland areas and in greater sage-grouse leks, and habitat

loss in these areas would not be attributed to mineral materials disposals. Closing areas in

sensitive wildlife habitats would result in long-term beneficial impacts to many species of wildlife.

Lands

In general, land acquisition or disposal actions would consider land tenure adjustment criteria

with the goal that the exchange, acquisition, or disposal would increase public benefits, including

wildlife resources. Any acquisition of land that includes high-value habitat can result in beneficial

impacts to wildlife by maintaining or enhancing the habitat using BLM management restrictions

or mitigation for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities. Any disposal of BLM-administered

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
872 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

land with high-value habitat is typically avoided; such disposals could increase the risk of

habitat loss through development activities because there would not be any BLM-required

mitigation. Lands no longer administered by the BLM could also experience increased human

presence that can increase disturbance to wildlife utilizing the area. All land tenure actions

are analyzed site specifically, using a public process, to determine the public interest before

making a decision. Consolidating land ownership through land tenure adjustments increases the

manageability of lands and results in more contiguous blocks of habitat, which would beneficially

impact wildlife. Alternative A identifies 8,573 acres for disposal by sale, exchange, or other

methods, and makes an additional 1,475 acres available with restrictions on future use. Many of

the lands with restrictions are in, or adjacent to, the East Fork and Whiskey Mountain ACECs

and would require management similar to the adjacent lands. Access is a primary goal in land

tenure adjustments, which could adversely impact wildlife by increasing human activity in areas

currently inaccessible to the public.

Renewable Energy

Alternative A opens 2,113,512 acres (88 percent of the planning area) to wind-energy

development consistent with the Wind Energy Programmatic EIS (BLM 2005a). It is expected

that wind energy would be not be developed universally across the planning area, but only in

areas identified as having high wind-energy potential. Allowing wind-energy development would

create collision hazards for bats and avian species because they can collide with wind turbine

blades, resulting in mortality of individual animals. Bats can also be killed from internal injuries

related to rapid pressure changes caused by the turbine blades. Wind-energy facilities result

in habitat loss and human disturbance through construction and maintenance of wind towers

and associated facilities, including high-voltage transmission lines. Wind-energy infrastructure

is considered permanent on the landscape, and therefore would result in permanent loss and

fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Alternative A management actions that avoid or exclude

wind-energy development on 280,697 acres would beneficially impact wildlife.

ROWs and Corridors

Alternative A opens 2,188,294 acres (91 percent of the planning area) to ROWs. Alternative A

manages 205,916 acres as ROW exclusion areas, of which 134,606 acres are in big game crucial

winter range or parturition areas, primarily in the Whiskey Mountain, East Fork, Red Canyon,

and Sweetwater Rocks areas, and along the NHTs. This management would beneficially impact

wildlife in the long term, particularly in areas with sensitive or limited habitats; it prohibits surface

disturbance or aboveground structure ROWs that could result in the loss and fragmentation of

habitats or become hazards to wildlife. Alternative A identifies 66,099 acres as ROW avoidance

areas, which offers less protection from habitat loss and fragmentation than exclusion areas;

however, large ROWs are generally not authorized in avoidance areas. Alternative A avoidance

areas are in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitats, primarily in the Lander Slope,

South Pass, Beaver Rim, and Green Mountain areas, which would result in long-term beneficial

impacts to wildlife. The only utility corridor designated under Alternative A is the Energy

Corridor 79-216 north of Lysite. Alternative A co-locates major ROWs with existing utilities on

a case-by-case basis to minimize surface disturbance. Co-locating utility lines would result in

long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife by eliminating or reducing surface disturbance in intact

habitats. Because Alternative A does not mandate co-location or close other areas to major

ROWs, there could be additional new routes, which would adversely impact wildlife through

the loss or fragmentation of habitats.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 873

Livestock Grazing Management

Alternative A allows livestock grazing on 2,324,934 acres (97 percent) of public land suitable for

grazing in the planning area. It does not allow livestock grazing on 69,276 acres (3 percent of the

planning area), including on previously closed allotments (which do not vary by alternative) and

remaining lands deemed unsuitable for grazing (e.g., rock outcrops and roads). Of the lands open

to grazing, 4,021 acres in the East Fork and Dubois Badlands area have not been actively grazed

since 1993 because these lands were associated with private lands purchased by the WGFD for

the Spence/Moriarity Wildlife Management Area (WMA). Most livestock grazing in the planning

area is by cattle, and areas open to grazing overlap 60,232 acres of crucial winter range for elk

and 6,848 acres of crucial winter range for bighorn sheep. Cattle grazing on elk and bighorn

sheep crucial winter range predominantly occurs during spring, summer, and fall; therefore,

direct spatial impacts would be limited. Livestock forage utilization would directly impact the

forage available for wintering elk and bighorn sheep. Winter sheep grazing typically overlaps

pronghorn winter and crucial winter range in the planning area and would adversely impact the

quality and quantity of shrubs available for wildlife. Activities related to sheep herding (the

presence of humans and dogs) would displace wildlife. Livestock forage utilization levels would

be established on a case-by-case basis under Alternative A, which typically manages forage use

to not exceed moderate utilization. There would be no direct competition for forage between

livestock and wildlife on closed lands, which would beneficially impact wildlife. Alternative

A prohibits salt or mineral supplements within 1⁄4 mile of riparian-wetland habitats to prevent

livestock congregation at water sources. This management action would beneficially impact

wildlife species requiring riparian-wetland areas for water, forage, and hiding cover.

Range improvements can change livestock grazing patterns and alter the way wildlife use their

habitats. Alternative A allows range improvements on a case-by-case basis, and it is expected

that new projects would disturb approximately 43 acres each year during construction and/or

development of projects. It is assumed that approximately two reservoirs and/or pits, three

wells, two spring developments, and 15 miles of fence would be constructed each year during

the planning period. New water developments constructed in big game crucial winter range

would modify natural movement patterns, potentially leading to reduced quantity and quality of

available forage for big game the following winter. Water can draw livestock into areas either not

previously used or under-utilized, which can increase plant utilization and potentially alter the

plant composition in these areas but could benefit vegetation in other areas. New fences would add

to the 2,285 miles of existing fence on public lands in the planning area that can adversely impact

wildlife movement and be a hazard to flying birds. Fences impede wildlife movement if they

are not constructed to wildlife-compatible standards and even then, fences can adversely impact

wildlife, particularly when considered on a cumulative basis. Existing fences having net wire, five

or six wires, or wires too tall for wildlife to safely jump can prohibit big game movement and

prevent wildlife from reaching seasonal habitats. Under Alternative A, fences and cattleguards

would be modified or removed on a case-by-case basis to facilitate wildlife movement.

Recreation and Travel Management

Under Alternative A, there would be adverse impacts to wildlife from increased human activity

along NHTs, the CDNST, and in areas surrounding developed recreation sites and campgrounds

in the South Pass and Green Mountain areas, because wildlife tend to avoid areas having

people, pets, and noise. Recreation activities during breeding and birthing/nesting periods can

cause animals to abandon their nests and/or young. Lands around the developed recreation

sites and campgrounds encompass 724 acres and are withdrawn (pre-FLPMA) from locatable

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
874 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

mineral exploration and development under Alternative A. Alternative A does not apply special

management prescriptions for intensive recreation areas, including Johnny Behind the Rocks,

The Bus @ Baldwin Creek, Sinks Canyon climbing area, Dubois Mill Site, the Sweetwater

River WSA, Sweetwater Rocks, and the Coal Mine Draw area, and manages these areas as a

planning area-wide ERMA. Alternative A management is directed at protecting resources, which

would result in some beneficial impacts to wildlife habitat by addressing adverse impacts from

mechanized or motorized vehicle use, camping, rock climbing, and hiking.

Alternative A limits motorized travel predominantly to existing roads and trails on 2,226,504

acres (93 percent of the planning area), including the East Fork, Beaver Rim, South Pass Historic

Mining Area, and NHTs ACECs. Alternative A allows OHV use off existing roads and trails

to perform necessary tasks such as retrieving big game kills, repairing range improvements,

and conducting mineral exploration activities where surface disturbance is less than 5 acres.

Alternative A limits 163,075 acres (7 percent of the planning area), primarily in the Whiskey

Mountain, Lander Slope, Red Canyon, and Green Mountain ACECs, to designated roads and

trails. Areas where travel is limited to designated roads and trails reduces road density and habitat

fragmentation and road proliferation in sensitive habitats, more than areas where travel is limited

to existing roads and trails. If frequent OHV use occurs during critical periods (e.g., winter and

birthing), adverse impacts to wildlife would increase, potentially leading to decreased health,

mortality to individuals, or overall population declines. Alternative A closes a total of 5,923 acres

(0.2 percent of the planning area) to motorized travel in the Dubois Badlands ACEC. Areas

closed to motorized travel would beneficially impact wildlife by eliminating habitat loss caused

by roads and reducing vehicle disturbance to animals using the area. Alternative A subjects a

total of 111,002 acres (0.5 percent of the planning area) to seasonal travel closures, which would

be implemented predominantly on Green Mountain and in the Lander Slope, Red Canyon, and

Whiskey Mountain ACECs. In addition, Alternative A closes 14,729 acres in the Red Canyon

area to over-snow travel, including motorized and nonmotorized use. These seasonal closure

areas overlap big game winter range and parturition areas, which would result in direct beneficial

impacts to wintering elk and bighorn sheep. The Red Canyon area supports a large population

of elk during winter and is a desired area to collect shed antlers. The over-snow travel closure

would protect big game from disturbance and harassment from over-snow vehicles during the

stressful winter and spring months.

4.4.6.3.2.4. Special Designations

Alternative A designates nine ACECs totaling 119,622 acres (5 percent) in the planning area,

which would protect wildlife and associated habitat from surface-disturbing activities and related

disruptive activities. ACEC management includes (1) closing lands or applying NSO stipulations

for mineral leasing, (2) requiring a Plan of Operations for locatable mineral development and

maintaining locatable mineral withdrawals in the Whiskey Mountain and East Fork ACECs,

(3) prohibiting or limiting motorized vehicle use, and (4) avoiding major ROWs. Potential

adverse impacts to wildlife could be mitigated to some degree from the requirement for a Plan

of Operations before locatable mineral exploration in an ACEC. This requirement would allow

the BLM an opportunity to identify and address potential impacts to wildlife with the mining

proponent; however, the 1872 General Mining Law gives preference to the mining proponent

over the protection of wildlife habitat.

The Whiskey Mountain, East Fork, and Red Canyon ACECs are in, or adjacent to, WGFD's

Whiskey Basin, Inberg/Roy, and Red Canyon WHMAs and the Spence/Moriarity WMA, all of

which were established to protect and provide big game crucial winter range. BLM management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 875

of the ACECs complements WGFD management of its lands, and all the lands together provide

the majority of the big game winter range in these areas. Alternative A manages the Whiskey

Mountain and East Fork ACECs to provide the greatest degree of habitat protection (closed to

oil and gas and other mineral leasing, withdrawn from locatable mineral entry, and avoided

for major ROWs) and prevent habitat loss and fragmentation on irreplaceable winter range.

Alternative A manages the Red Canyon, Lander Slope, and Green Mountain ACECs with less

restrictive prescriptions (NSO for mineral leasing, open for locatable mineral entry, and avoided

for major ROWs). In addition, Alternative A closes big game crucial winter range in the Red

Canyon ACEC to phosphate leasing. These management prescriptions would result in long-term

beneficial impacts to wildlife. Alternative A manages the WSA lands in the Dubois Badlands

ACEC in accordance with BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas and

manages lands with wilderness characteristics with standard stipulations. WSA lands receive a

higher degree of habitat protection than lands with wilderness characteristics; therefore, habitat

could be lost or fragmented on lands with wilderness characteristics. Alternative A closes the East

Fork ACEC and much of the Whiskey Mountain ACEC to livestock grazing to make all forage

available for wildlife. Alternative A seasonally closes the Whiskey Mountain, Red Canyon, and

Green Mountain ACECs to vehicle travel during winter to protect big game from disturbance that

could cause additional stress. The East Fork ACEC is essentially closed to vehicle travel during

winter because the surrounding WGFD lands in the Inberg/Roy WHMA are closed. Management

actions under Alternative A would result in direct long-term beneficial impacts to big game

species, primarily bighorn sheep, elk, and mule deer, and to wildlife species in all the other

statutory categories that utilize these areas.

Alternative A management actions for a portion of the Beaver Rim ACEC are less restrictive

to minerals, ROW, and surface-disturbing activities that could result in long-term loss or

fragmentation of wildlife habitat. The ACEC is designated in part to protect raptor nesting

habitats, and activities that would alter suitable nest or perch sites would likely cause raptors to

avoid the area. Protections aimed at limiting surface-disturbing activities in the South Pass

Historic Mining Area and NHTs ACECs would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife in these

areas.

NHTs do not impact wildlife. However, to the extent that Alternative A restricts surface-disturbing

and development activities within 1⁄4 mile either side of trails, this management would beneficially

impact wildlife habitat for species in all the statutory categories. Alternative A does not

specifically manage lands adjacent to the CDNST; therefore, there would be no direct beneficial

impact to wildlife species. Alternative A does not specifically manage NWSRS-eligible waterway

segments along approximately 21 miles in the Baldwin Creek and the Sweetwater River with

WSR-specific prescriptions, but manages them in accordance with the Lander Slope ACEC

and Sweetwater Canyon WSA prescriptions, respectively. ACEC and WSA management that

protects the overall stream values and maintains habitat in its present condition would beneficially

impact wildlife.

Overall, Alternative A management prescriptions would result in long-term beneficial impacts

to wildlife on 169,229 acres (7 percent) of the planning area. Wildlife on adjacent non-federal

lands in the Whiskey Mountain, East Fork, Lander Slope, and Red Canyon areas would likely

experience similar beneficial impacts because of the management of adjacent BLM-administered

lands and the presence of several private land conservation agreements.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
876 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.4.6.3.3. Alternative B

4.4.6.3.3.1. Program Management

In all cases, Alternative B requires surfacing-disturbing activities and facilities to have the

smallest footprint practical so as to minimize the impacts of wildlife habitat loss and fragmentation

and avoids such disturbances within 1,000 feet of identified reptile hibernacula. The BLM would

work with project proponents to identify ways to minimize the size of surface disturbances, such

as reducing pipeline construction widths, utilizing multi-well pads and directional drilling, and

co-locating communication sites. This action would limit the overall number of acres disturbed

and number of surface facilities on the landscape, which would reduce adverse impacts to wildlife

from habitat loss and fragmentation. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts to

wildlife than Alternative A.

Alternative B excludes wind-energy development in big game crucial winter range and

parturition areas, raptor concentration areas, and within 3 miles of greater sage-grouse leks. The

Special Status Species – Wildlife section describes additional greater sage-grouse wind energy

management actions. Wind-energy developments have large footprints and require a large number

of acres to accommodate facilities, powerlines, and roads. Prohibiting developments in limited

and sensitive habitats would result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife under Alternative B

than under Alternative A.

The TLS afforded to big game crucial winter range and elk winter range is the same as Alternative

A, but Alternative B extends the TLS for active raptor nests from 3⁄4 mile to 1.5 miles and

designates specific dates for each raptor species. Alternative B protects 480,406 more acres

during the raptor nesting period than Alternative A which would beneficially impact non-raptor

nesting birds. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts to raptors than Alternative

A. Specifying nesting dates by raptor species would likely shorten the timing restriction period

for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities compared to the Alternative A period which

encompasses all nesting dates for raptor species. There would be no difference in impacts

from raptor nesting dates between alternatives A and B, except for the burrowing owl and

northern goshawk, whose nesting periods are not encompassed by the dates under Alternative

A. Alternative B management would result in greater beneficial impacts to nesting burrowing

owls and northern goshawks; these species are further discussed in the Special Status Species –

Wildlife section.

Alternative B prohibits new road development in big game crucial winter range and parturition

areas, unless it is determined that there would be no adverse impacts to big game species.

Protecting sensitive habitats from loss or fragmentation would result in long-term beneficial

impacts to wildlife. Reducing or eliminating vehicle traffic during the winter and birthing periods

would limit animal displacement and stress. Under Alternative B, roads and trails identified as

redundant in areas or where road densities are too high to maintain quality wildlife habitat would

be closed and reclaimed. Habitat previously lost to road disturbance or avoided by big game,

particularly elk, would be returned to usable habitat. These actions would result in long-term

beneficial impacts to wildlife species. Reducing the number and miles of road in an area would

reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions, habitat loss, and habitat fragmentation. Alternative B roads

management would have greater long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative A.

Alternative B does not allow new fences to be constructed unless necessary to address human

safety issues, needed to exclude and/or protect wildlife, or where determined to not impact

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 877

wildlife resources. Existing fences would be removed, when appropriate, to reduce habitat

fragmentation and facilitate big game movement. Fencing that does not conform to BLM

standards can prevent big game from migrating between seasonal ranges and force animals to

use poorer quality habitats or cause animal mortality. Wildlife habitats currently unfragmented

by fencing would remain unfragmented under Alternative B, and limiting and/or removing the

number of fences in migration corridors would reduce risks associated with animals jumping over

or crossing under fence wires. Alternative B management actions regarding fences would result

in greater long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative A.

Alternative B prohibits livestock water development projects in big game crucial winter range and

parturition areas. Water developments, which can increase the amount of livestock forage harvest,

could adversely impact wildlife if plant utilization increases substantially. Wildlife depend on

vegetation being available, appropriate to the wildlife species, and in ample quantities to meet

winter forage demands and nutritional needs in these limited habitats. Alternative B management

would result in greater long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative A.

Management under Alternative B would adjust livestock and wild horse forage allocations, where

necessary, to make available the forage needed to meet big game herd objectives. Alternative B

would reduce authorized livestock AUMs as necessary and would manage wild horse numbers at

the lower end of the appropriate management level to provide forage for wildlife. Alternative

B would manage forage utilization at a lower use level than Alternative A to ensure adequate

vegetation remains for wildlife and plant health. Alternative B manages vegetation on big game

crucial winter range and parturition areas to benefit the big game species requiring the range.

These actions would result in greater long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative A.

4.4.6.3.3.2. Resources

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative B manages approximately 5,490 acres of the Little Red Creek Complex as non-WSA

land with wilderness characteristics, and manages the area to protect wilderness characteristics.

Through overlapping management of the Whiskey Mountain ACEC, most of the area is closed to

mineral development, mining, livestock grazing and excluded from ROW development. These

prescriptions would conserve wildlife habitat in these areas. Closing the areas designated as

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics not located in the Whiskey Mountain ACEC to

motorized and mechanized travel and managing them for naturalness and solitude would have

beneficial impacts to resident wildlife species in all statutory categories. Habitats would remain

unfragmented by roads under Alternative B, which would result in long-term benefits to wildlife.

Occasional human presence and activity could result in short-term wildlife displacement.

Fire and Fuels

Under Alternative B, there would be approximately 1,000 acres of prescribed fire and 1,500 acres

of mechanical treatment conducted each year to address rangeland fire and fuel concerns. Impacts

would be the same as under Alternative A, but would occur on more acres. Assuming these

treatments were carefully planned and implemented, there would be beneficial impacts to wildlife

habitat by reducing the risk of wildfire, which would likely result in more adverse impacts than

beneficial impacts. Fuels and fire management under Alternative B would use full suppression

tactics, including the use of heavy equipment to address wildland fire, but only in high-priority

areas for resource protection (identified WUI areas, developed recreation sites, areas of known

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
878 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

cultural resources, and aboveground utility ROWs). Except for areas with known cultural

sites, the other areas typically have limited value to wildlife; therefore, adverse and beneficial

impacts to wildlife would be minor. Alternative B could result in increased risks to wildlife from

landscape-level fires that would have both short-term and long-term adverse impacts to wildlife.

Vegetation

Alternative B focuses on letting forests and woodlands evolve naturally without using most

traditional silviculture techniques, except in areas with public safety concerns or where forest

health goals cannot be met. Forest management plans would be developed for the Green

Mountain, Lander Slope/Red Canyon, South Pass, and Dubois areas to address forest product

sales and management of forest insect infestations. Forest insect and disease outbreaks would be

managed to address safety concerns primarily in WUI areas and around developed campgrounds.

Wildlife typically avoid using forest habitats in WUI areas and campgrounds due to increased

human presence and activity, noise, and pets. Not managing disease outbreaks can result in

long-term loss of forest/woodland habitat. Areas affected by treatment would be replanted to meet

forest health goals on a case-by-case basis, which would result in long-term beneficial impacts to

wildlife dependent on timbered areas to meet all or part of their seasonal requirements. Alternative

B does not allow forest product sales in the Lander Slope/Red Canyon and South Pass areas unless

they are necessary to address public safety or are identified for wildlife habitat improvement.

These areas contain sensitive habitats for wintering big game, trophy game, small game, raptors,

and neotropical migrants. Less disturbance caused by noise and increased human presence related

to tree or firewood cutting during sensitive seasonal periods would beneficially impact wildlife.

Alternative B manages grasslands and shrublands for biological diversity and to benefit wildlife,

not necessarily to meet NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions. Management would focus on plant

communities that improve wildlife habitat, such as managing for more shrubs on sites than

identified in the NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions. Soil and vegetation treatments would be

used where needed to improve plant diversity on the sites. Diverse plant communities would

beneficially impact wildlife because each species has its own particular forage and cover

requirements; generally the more diverse the habitat, the more species of wildlife it can support.

Beneficial impacts to wildlife would be slightly greater under Alternative B than Alternative A,

because wildlife needs would be the focus for managing grassland and shrubland habitats.

Riparian-Wetland Areas

Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of surface water,

riparian-wetland areas, playas, and delineated 100-year floodplains. This action would protect

820 more feet of habitat adjacent to or surrounding these areas from surface-disturbing activities

than Alternative A, or a total of 125,403 more acres across the planning area. Habitats remaining

available and unfragmented would result in direct beneficial impacts to wildlife.

Unlike Alternative A, which incorporates all types of management, including infrastructure to

improve riparian-wetland health, management under Alternative B focuses on using the natural

healing capacity of sites and reduced levels of livestock grazing to improve riparian-wetland

areas toward PFC. Infrastructure-based projects, primarily offsite water developments and

protective fencing, is de-emphasized and management actions, including closing roads, applying

stipulations, and changing livestock grazing management, are emphasized. Less riparian-wetland

fencing that can be a hazard to birds and wildlife or restricts access of some species of wildlife to

riparian-wetland habitats would result in long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife. Using a natural

healing approach could require a longer time period to achieve riparian/wetland improvement than

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 879

using projects but the healing time would depend on how quickly changes in management occur.

Alternative B road closures and subsequent reclamation would beneficially impact 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.

Fish and Special Status Species

Alternative B prohibits new BLM projects that would result in the removal or depletion of

water from fish-bearing streams, and would remove existing projects that affect sustainability

of populations of fish species. Alternative B also requires surveys and subsequent mitigation, if

required, for all BLM Sensitive Species in a project area before authorizing surface‐disturbing

and disruptive activities. Protection measures implemented for Sensitive Species would likely

result in beneficial impacts to wildlife using the same area. For both of these management actions,

Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative A, which

implement the actions only on a case-by-case basis.

Alternative B prohibits livestock water development projects in greater sage‐grouse nesting areas,

which would prevent heavy grazing utilization and make more vegetation available to wildlife in

those areas. Alternative B prohibits surface‐disturbing and disruptive activities within 0.6 mile of

occupied or undetermined greater sage‐grouse leks, which also protects habitat for other wildlife

utilizing the same area. Alternative B protects 93,410 acres of habitat on public surface lands

over the long term, which represents an almost 600 percent increase in habitat protected over

Alternative A. Alternative B avoids surface‐disturbing and disruptive activities from February

1 to July 31 within 3 miles of occupied greater sage-grouse leks, equating to approximately

1,339,609 acres of public surface lands. This seasonal protection would have a beneficial impact

on many other species of sagebrush-obligate neotropical migrants nesting in these habitats.

Alternative B protects 69 percent more acres of nesting habitat (794,452 acres) in the short term

than Alternative A. Alternative B closes the designated greater sage-grouse Core Area to oil

and gas leasing, which would beneficially impact other wildlife species by eliminating habitat

loss and animal disturbance/displacement from development and operations activities. Overall,

Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife from the larger buffer areas

and the closure of the greater sage-grouse Core Area to oil and gas leasing than Alternative A.

Wild Horses

Alternative B wild horse management would result in direct beneficial impacts to big game, game

birds, raptors, and neotropical migrants because fences would be removed or modified to facilitate

free movement among wild horse herds. Removing fences would reduce hazards to big game

animals and birds. Modifying fences to allow wild horse movement would facilitate big game

movement that might otherwise be limited or restricted. Establishing viewing loops for wild

horses would result in displacement of wildlife using areas adjacent to the loop road from vehicle

use and human presence, but wildlife should return once vehicles have left the area.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

The area of protection surrounding cultural and paleontological resources increases under

Alternative B, which would increase the amount of wildlife habitat protected near these sites.

Alternative B would pursue locatable mineral withdrawals for the Warm Springs Canyon

Flume and fossil areas in the Beaver Rim and Bison Basin proposed NNLs preventing the

alteration or loss of wildlife habitat. In addition, these same areas would be subject to an NSO

restriction for mineral leasing. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
880 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

than Alternative A because Alternative B protects more acres from mineral exploration and

development that would result in habitat loss and fragmentation.

4.4.6.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Minerals

Alternative B allows locatable mineral entry on 954,776 acres of public surface (40 percent) in the

planning area. Impacts to wildlife from exploration and development activity would be the same

as Alternative A, but could occur on approximately 59 percent fewer acres of habitat. Alternative

B makes available 237,264 acres of crucial winter range and parturition habitat open to exploration

and development. In addition to the withdrawals under Alternative A, Alternative B pursues an

additional 1,609,491 acres of federal surface and subsurface for withdrawal. Withdrawals would

be for lands primarily in designated ACECs, of which 782,105 acres are big game crucial winter

range and parturition habitat. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife

than Alternative A, because Alternative B would withdraw more land from exploration and

development, which would result in less habitat loss, fragmentation, and wildlife disruption.

Alternative B opens a total of 816,619 public surface acres (34 percent) in the planning area

to geothermal leasing and opens 529,576 acres (22 percent) of public surface to oil and gas

leasing. Impacts of exploration and development activities under Alternative B would be the

same as under Alternative A, but would occur on approximately 60 percent fewer acres of

wildlife habitat than under Alternative A. It is anticipated that approximately 536 acres would be

disturbed each year under Alternative B through oil and gas development activities, with 274

acres being disturbed yearly over the long term. Alternative B would disturb approximately 23

percent fewer acres than Alternative A, resulting in fewer adverse impacts to wildlife and their

habitats. Alternative B manages exploration and development in portions of crucial winter range

and parturition habitat with a TLS. Alternative B opens the fewest acres to mineral leasing and

potential future development, resulting in the least amount of habitat and habitat connectivity loss

and fragmentation; this would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to wildlife.

Alternative B does not apply an MLP; instead, lands with resource conflicts are closed to oil and

gas leasing. This is more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative A which does not have a method

for resolving conflicts prior to leasing.

Alternative B extends seasonal protections for big game crucial winter range, elk winter range,

and raptor nesting, and seasonal protections for special status species (greater sage-grouse

and mountain plover) to the O&M activities for developed projects if the activities would

be detrimental to wildlife. Activities such as hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), powerline

reconstruction, and range improvement and road maintenance are subject to timing limitations to

protect wildlife. These types of activities can stress and disturb wildlife during the sensitive winter

and nesting periods due to the time it takes to complete the work, the level of noise generated, and

the presence of people and equipment. It is expected that project O&M activities would result in

both short-term adverse impacts related to animal displacement and long-term adverse impacts if

the level of activity results in area avoidance or loss of nests or young. Alternative B would result

in greater short-term beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, areas closed to leasing or subject to major constraints are closed to

geophysical activities and areas open are subject to stipulations for surface-disturbing activities,

disruptive activities, and vehicle travel for the area. Closing areas would provide long-term

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 881

protection from the adverse impacts of cross-country motorized travel, vegetation crushing with

possible plant mortality, and wildlife displacement. Restricting geophysical activities during

sensitive times such as breeding, nesting, and winter periods would prevent abandonment or loss

of nests or young, providing short-term beneficial impacts to wildlife.

Alternative B opens a total of 464,859 acres (19 percent) of the planning area to phosphate

leasing, of which 2,699 acres are in areas having identified potential for phosphate. In areas

with potential, Alternative B opens 488 acres of crucial winter range and 836 acres of raptor

nesting habitat to leasing, which, if developed, would adversely impact wildlife. Closed lands are

primarily in the existing and proposed ACECs, which encompass sensitive wildlife habitats such

as big game crucial winter range, parturition areas, and nesting habitats. Alternative B would

result in long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife because habitat would not be lost or fragmented

as a result of phosphate development. Where phosphate leasing is open and development occurs,

there would be adverse impacts to wildlife from the long-term, and possibly permanent, loss of

habitat. Wildlife would likely avoid closed areas adjacent to open areas because of development

activities and noise from phosphate mining operations. Alternative B would result in greater

beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative A.

Alternative B opens approximately 185,266 surface acres (8 percent) of the planning area to

mineral materials disposals, 79 percent fewer acres than Alternative A. Of these acres, 1,574

overlap big game crucial winter range and parturition areas and 73,165 acres are in raptor nesting

habitats. Alternative B closes 2,208,943 acres to mineral materials disposal primarily in the new

and existing ACECs. Closing areas in sensitive wildlife habitats would have beneficial impacts,

and Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts than Alternative A.

Lands

Under Alternative B, 5,436 acres are available for disposal by sale, exchange, or other methods,

with an additional 1,435 acres available but with restrictions on their future use. Alternative B

would result in fewer adverse impacts to wildlife habitat than Alternative A because, under

Alternative B, more acres remain in public ownership and subject to management that considers

wildlife values. Alternative B makes approximately 32 percent fewer acres available for exchange

and sale than Alternative A, which could also limit the acquisition of lands important to wildlife.

Renewable Energy

Alternative B opens 41,372 acres (2 percent) of the planning area to wind-energy development,

which is 98 percent less acres than Alternative A. Alternative B closes big game winter range,

parturition areas, and migration corridors, and identified raptor concentration areas to wind-energy

projects. This action would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife using these key habitat areas.

Alternative B provides the greatest planning area-wide guidance for wind-energy project locations,

and would result in the fewest adverse impacts to wildlife compared to the other alternatives.

ROWs and Corridors

Alternative B opens fewer acres to ROWs (475,181 acres, or 20 percent of the planning area)

and manages more acres as ROW exclusion areas (1,919,029 acres, or 80 percent of the planning

area) than under Alternative A. ROW exclusion areas encompass 640,718 acres of big game

crucial winter range and 27,636 acres of big game parturition habitat. Alternative B manages

315,962 acres as ROW avoidance areas. Alternative B designates three utility corridors on 15,364

acres in the planning area; corridor widths vary from 400 feet near NHTs to a minimum of 3,500

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
882 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

feet in Energy Corridor 79-216. Concentrating ROWs in corridors would beneficially impact

wildlife by reducing the amount of new surface disturbance in undisturbed and unfragmented

habitats. Alternative B would result in the fewest adverse impacts to wildlife in relation to the

other alternatives.

Livestock Grazing Management

Alternative B opens approximately 2,312,095 acres (97 percent) of the planning area to livestock

grazing, 12,839 fewer acres than Alternative A. This management closes lands to livestock

grazing in the WGFD Spence/Moriarity WMA, Whiskey Mountain WHMA, and in Sweetwater

Canyon. Because of their unique wildlife resources, these areas are priority wildlife wintering

and viewing areas for elk, bighorn sheep, and moose. Closing these areas to livestock grazing

would reduce competition for forage between livestock and wildlife. Lands closed in the

Whiskey Mountain area are in and adjacent to bighorn sheep crucial winter range. These lands

have shallow soils that produce limited vegetation, so closing lands would allow all produced

vegetation to be available to bighorn sheep. Sweetwater Canyon is crucial winter range for moose

and elk and supports a diversity of wildlife species from all wildlife statutory categories. Due

to steep canyon walls, livestock tend to concentrate in the canyon bottom and heavily utilize

the riparian-wetland grass and willow community, reducing the quality and quantity of forage

and thermal cover for moose and elk. Closing the Spence/Moriarity, Whiskey Mountain, and

Sweetwater Canyon lands to livestock grazing would eliminate competition for forage between

livestock and big game, and result in greater long-term beneficial impacts to big game and other

species of wildlife using these habitats than Alternative A.

Alternative B livestock grazing levels would not exceed light utilization on areas preferred

by livestock, which often include riparian-wetland areas. Higher utilization levels, such as

the moderate use allowed under Alternative A, can reduce forage and cover for wildlife and

plant diversity and result in a decline in the number of wildlife species the area can support.

However, some species of grassland birds prefer areas that receive higher plant utilization

levels (Derner et al. 2009). Alternative B prohibits salt or mineral supplements within 1⁄2 mile

of riparian-wetland habitats to aid in preventing livestock from congregating at water sources,

increasing the protection by 1⁄4 mile over Alternative A. Alternative B uses livestock grazing

management strategies that do not require developing additional water or fences to maintain,

enhance, or achieve rangeland health. It is assumed that new reservoirs and/or pits, wells, spring

developments, or fences would not be constructed during the planning period, a reduction of 860

acres of disturbance over Alternative A. Limiting new range improvements that can impede

migration and result in habitat loss, fragmentation, and displacement would beneficially impact

wildlife. As opportunities arise, fences and cattleguards installed for livestock management would

be removed or modified to facilitate wildlife movement under Alternative B. Alternative B would

result in greater long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative A.

Recreation and Travel Management

Alternative B proposes to withdraw 1,609,491 more acres from locatable mineral exploration

than Alternative A; this would beneficially impact wildlife. This management action would

protect wildlife habitat on these lands and would withdraw the most acres compared to all

other alternatives. Alternative B designates more acres as SRMAs and distinct ERMAs than

Alternative A. Alternative B applies special management to these designations, such as closing

the areas to mineral leasing, withdrawing the areas from locatable mineral exploration and

development, and excluding the areas to wind-energy development and ROWs; this would protect

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 883

and maintain wildlife habitat. These actions would result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife

than Alternative A, but increased human presence from recreationists could adversely impact

wildlife utilizing the SRMAs and distinct ERMAs. Increased human activity in these areas is

expected to occur outside the winter months when wildlife are less likely to be present in large

numbers/groups. Closing recreation areas to motorized vehicle use would beneficially impact

wildlife by minimizing noise and reducing or eliminating habitat loss and fragmentation from

road and trail use.

Alternative B increases restrictions on motorized vehicle use; it closes 57,456 more acres to

motorized and mechanized travel than Alternative A. Closing areas would prevent additional

habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from road use. Roads and trails in closure areas would

rehabilitate over time, returning disturbed roadbeds to usable habitat. Alternative B changes

37,989 acres limited to motorized travel on existing roads and trails to limited to designated roads

and trails. Increasing the number of acres where specific roads can be designated increases

the protection of wildlife habitat by directing road travel away from sensitive habitats such as

winter range, parturition area, and nesting habitat. Closing or decreasing the number of roads

and trails available to hunters by impact the ability to achieve or maintain wildlife population

objectives set by the WGFD. Alternative B includes seasonal closures on 5,803 more acres of

wildlife habitat than Alternative A, which would result in greater long-term beneficial impacts to

wintering and birthing wildlife than Alternative A.

4.4.6.3.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative B designates 15 ACECs totaling 1,492,990 acres (62 percent) of public land in the

planning area. The types of beneficial impacts to wildlife would be similar to Alternative A,

but these impacts would apply to 1,373,368 more acres, roughly 12 times the number of acres

designated under Alternative A. Alternative B manages ACECs with the most restrictive mineral

and realty prescriptions, which would protect wildlife habitat from loss or fragmentation over

the long term. This management would result in direct beneficial impacts to wildlife and their

associated habitats by (1) closing lands to mineral leasing, (2) pursuing locatable mineral entry

withdrawals, (3) closing or limiting areas to motorized vehicle use, (4) excluding major utility

systems, ROWs, and wind-energy development, and (5) prohibiting other surface-disturbing

activities not compatible with retaining or enhancing the areas’ values. Beneficial impacts to

wildlife from management actions for the Whiskey Mountain, Lander Slope, Red Canyon, and

Dubois Badlands ACECs would increase under Alternative B compared to Alternative A. In

addition, Alternative B closes the Whiskey Mountain ACEC to livestock grazing, which would

eliminate the competition for forage on bighorn sheep winter range. Alternative B closes the

Lander Slope, Red Canyon, and Dubois Badlands areas to mineral leasing and withdraws the

areas from locatable mineral exploration and development; this would provide greater protection

of wildlife habitat from surface-disturbing activities than Alternative A. Alternative B expands

the size of the East Fork, Green Mountain, Beaver Rim, South Pass Mining Area, and NHTs

ACECs, increasing the acres of wildlife habitat protected from surface-disturbing activities over

Alternative A. Alternative B specifically expands the Green Mountain and East Fork ACECs to

protect more elk crucial winter range and parturition habitat.

Alternative B designates six additional ACECs in addition to the nine ACECs designated under

Alternative A that overlap big game crucial winter range, nesting habitat for all bird species, and

habitat for wildlife species in each statutory category. These lands would be closed to mineral

leasing and withdrawn from locatable mineral exploration and developments which would protect

wildlife occupying the area. Management actions that preclude new surface disturbance would

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
884 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

protect seasonal habitats, movement corridors, and connectivity habitats from loss, fragmentation,

and modification, which would result in long-term beneficial impacts to all wildlife species. Of

the six new ACECs, the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC is designated

specifically for greater sage-grouse. Management that protects the sagebrush ecosystem and

riparian-wetland habitats would have beneficial impacts for other wildlife species, particularly

sagebrush-obligate species.

There would be long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife that use habitats in ACECs because

management actions would protect habitats year-round versus the seasonal protections that come

with standard stipulations. This would be especially beneficial to big game winter range because

management would prevent habitat disturbance and loss that can occur outside the winter period.

Under Alternative B, the area of surface protection increases from 1⁄4 mile to 5 miles either side of

NHTs, unless the project would not visible from the trails; therefore, Alternative B would protect

more acres of wildlife habitat from loss or fragmentation than Alternative A. This action would

result in long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife. Alternative B’s management of the expanded

Green Mountain ACEC is more beneficial to wildlife because all of the elk parturition areas are

closed to oil and gas leasing and withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. The area has both

uranium and oil and gas potential so the beneficial impacts could be considerable in comparison

to Alternative A.

Overall, Alternative B management prescriptions would result in long-term beneficial impacts to

wildlife on a larger part of the planning area than Alternative A. These beneficial impacts would

likely also be seen on the adjacent non-federal lands in the Whiskey Mountain, East Fork, Lander

Slope, and Red Canyon areas due to the management of adjacent lands and the number of land

conservation agreements in place.

Alternative B recommends NWSRS-eligible waterway segments as suitable for inclusion in

the NWSRS, closes lands within 1⁄4 mile of those waterways to mineral and realty actions, and

recommends they be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. Alternative B also closes these

areas to motorized and mechanized travel and activities that change the character of the waterway

and the adjacent area. This management would reduce or eliminate habitat loss and fragmentation,

which would result in long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife. Alternative B increases the level

of protection for surface-disturbing activities, and would result in greater beneficial impacts to

wildlife than Alternative A.

4.4.6.3.4. Alternative C

4.4.6.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C does not require that the footprint of surfacing-disturbing activities and facilities

be reduced to minimize the impacts of wildlife habitat loss and fragmentation. Not reducing

the footprint could lead to greater amounts of unnecessary habitat loss than Alternative B and

somewhat more than Alternative A. Alternative C does not avoid reptile hibernacula, which

would result in the same impacts as Alternative A and greater adverse impacts than Alternative B,

which avoids surface disturbance within 1,000 feet of den sites.

Alternative C manages wind-energy development consistent with the Wind Energy Programmatic

EIS ROD (BLM 2005a), and does not specifically exclude big game crucial winter range and

parturition areas, raptor concentration areas, and habitats within 3 miles of greater sage-grouse

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 885

leks from wind-energy development. Alternative C would result in adverse impacts to wildlife the

same as Alternative A and greater than Alternative B, because Alternative C makes more area

available for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities related to wind-energy development.

Alternative C does not apply a TLS for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in elk winter

range (166,525 acres). Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to wintering elk on

non-crucial winter range than alternatives A and B. The Alternative C TLS buffer for active

raptor nests is 1⁄2 mile and nesting dates are specific to each raptor species. Alternative C protects

less raptor nesting habitat (158,199 acres) during the nesting period than Alternative A (301,237

acres) or Alternative B (781,643 acres). A 1⁄2-mile protective buffer would not be adequate to

protect raptor species that are more sensitive to disturbance, and disturbance could cause the

raptor to abandon the nest or chicks. Like Alternative B, Alternative C would specify nesting

dates by raptor species would likely shorten the timing restriction period for surface-disturbing

and disruptive activities compared to the Alternative A timeframe, which encompasses all nesting

dates for raptor species.

Like Alternative A, Alternative C does not manage any areas with MLP protections and so it has

the potential for more adverse impacts to wildlife than Alternative D, which applies an MLP in

the Beaver Rim area, and Alternative B, which closes the Beaver Rim area to oil and gas leasing.

Alternative C allows new road development in big game crucial winter range and parturition

habitat except in areas closed to surface-disturbing activities. Roads identified as redundant would

not be closed or reclaimed. These actions could increase or maintain road densities in sensitive

habitats and increase habitat fragmentation. Alternative C allows new fences in the planning area

and the miles of fence would steadily accumulate. Existing fences would be removed or modified

on a case-by-case basis to address habitat fragmentation and impediments to big game movement

in migration corridors. Alternative C allows livestock water development projects in big game

crucial winter range and parturition areas, which could impact the availability of forage and

increase habitat disturbance to wildlife. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to

wildlife than Alternative B and about the same as Alternative A.

Management under Alternative C gives priority to livestock forage needs when allocating

vegetation resources in the planning area. Vegetation on big game crucial winter range or

parturition areas is not managed specifically to benefit big game, but managed instead to benefit

all grazing and browsing animals (livestock, wild horses, and wildlife). In habitats where forage is

limited or over allocated, this would adversely impact wildlife because adequate forage might not

be available on a consistent basis. Alternative C would have an increased potential for adverse

impacts to wildlife than alternatives A and B.

4.4.6.3.4.2. Resources

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative C manages lands with wilderness characteristics in the Little Red Creek Complex

for multiple use, which would increase the risk of adverse impacts to wildlife habitat as a result

of the area being open to surface-disturbing activities. Increased human presence in the area

from authorized activities would result in short-term wildlife displacement, with the degree of

disturbance depending on the extent and timing of the activity. Alternative C does not designate

the Whiskey Mountain ACEC; therefore, protections afforded under alternatives A and B would

not apply. Alternative C limits motorized travel to existing roads and trails, which would result in

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
886 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

impacts similar to Alternative A and more adverse than under Alternative B. Because Alternative

B designates only a small area (5,490 acres) as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics

to protect the area’s wilderness character, the adverse impacts under Alternative C from not

specially managing these areas would not be substantially greater.

Fire and Fuels

Under Alternative C, approximately 300 acres per year would be treated by prescribed fire and

500 acres per year would be treated using mechanical methods. Alternative C would result in

impacts the same as Alternative A, and decreases the use of prescribed fire over Alternative B.

Alternative C allows full suppression to address wildland fire across the planning area, including

the use of heavy equipment. Alternative C impacts to wildlife would be the same as impacts under

Alternative A. Full suppression could adversely impact wildlife in sagebrush-grass ecosystems

that benefit from periodic fire needed to rejuvenate sagebrush and promote plant diversity, but

would limit adverse impacts from landscape-level wildland fire that results in long-term habitat

loss and wildlife displacement across a large landscape.

Vegetation

Impacts to wildlife from forest management actions under Alternative C would be similar to

impacts under Alternative A. The full range of silviculture techniques would be used to manage

forests and woodlands to improve forest health, provide forest products to the public, and address

forest insect and disease outbreaks. Alternative C uses thinning and selective timber removals to

maintain forest health and reduce the risks of tree mortality from insects, disease, and wildfire.

Alternative C allows clear-cuts with no limitations on size, which could result in the long-term

loss of adequate security cover for elk. Replanting efforts would follow timber harvest, which

would beneficially impact wildlife once trees grow enough to offer hiding cover.

Under Alternative C, forest management plans would be developed for the Green Mountain,

Lander Slope/Red Canyon, South Pass, and Dubois areas to address forest health, product sales,

and commercial timber production. These are important areas to many species of wildlife,

in particular, big game. Managing for forest health and limited forest product sales would

beneficially impact wildlife by maintaining intact healthy habitats. Large-scale commercial sales

would adversely impact wildlife in the short term through disturbances from noise and human

presence, and the potential loss of soil and degraded water quality. Animal displacement from the

affected area and habitat loss or alteration would adversely impact wildlife in the long term.

Alternative C manages grasslands and shrublands to maximize forage production on the

ecological site, as described in the NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions. In most areas this action

would result in an increase in the amount of herbaceous vegetation present in the plant community

and a decrease in the amount of shrubs. Treatments focused on increasing grass plant production

would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife grazers such as elk and bighorn sheep, and could

adversely impact wildlife browsers such as pronghorn, mule deer, and moose. In addition,

neotropical migrants, nongame mammals, predatory animals, and some game birds would

experience beneficial impacts from increased habitat, while shrub-obligate species, including

small game, game birds, trophy game, reptiles, and neotropical migrants, would likely experience

adverse impacts from loss of habitat. Most wildlife species present in the planning area are

sagebrush/grass obligates; a few species are grassland obligates. Beneficial impacts to wildlife

would be expected to be lower under Alternative C than under alternatives A and B, because the

action would be likely to manage for more grass and fewer shrubs, which can adversely impact a

larger number of wildlife species.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 887

The Alternative C management to prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of

riparian-wetland areas is same as management under Alternative A, except that Alternative C

allows a smaller distance if it can be shown that riparian-wetland area protection could still be

achieved. Under Alternative C, more acres of wildlife habitat adjacent to riparian-wetland areas

could be disturbed than under Alternative A and substantially more acres than under Alternative B.

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C management to improve riparian-wetland areas toward

PFC would consist of all available techniques; however, Alternative C likely would utilize more

livestock control fences and water developments to achieve improvement than Alternative A.

As described under Alternative A, additional fencing and water developments can result in

both adverse and beneficial impacts to wildlife. Because fences can be hazardous to wildlife

movement, Alternative C would result in the greatest risk for adverse impacts to wildlife.

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative C would result in the greatest risk to wildlife

from new fencing and water developments.

Fish and Special Status Species

Impacts to fish and special status species under Alternative C would be the same as impacts

under Alternative A, and Alternative C management of fish and special status species is much

less restrictive than Alternative B. Required surveys and subsequent mitigation for sensitive

species, actions that remove or deplete water from fish-bearing streams, and the development of

livestock water projects in greater sage-grouse nesting habitat are all authorized on a case-by-case

basis. Alternative C management of the greater sage-grouse Core Area and the size of greater

sage-grouse lek and nesting protection buffers is the same as Alternative A, and much less

restrictive than management under Alternative B; therefore, Alternative C would provide fewer

habitat and seasonal protections than Alternative B.

Wild Horses

Alternative C considers impacts to wild horse movement from new fences in HMAs, but

existing fences would not be specifically removed or modified to facilitate wild horse movement.

Adverse impacts to wildlife from wild horse management actions under Alternative C would be

the same as impacts under Alternative A and greater than under Alternative B, which removes

fences. Alternative C establishes wild horse viewing loops and impacts would be the same as

under Alternative B.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Alternative C would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife from cultural and paleontological

resources protection the same as Alternative A and less than Alternative B. Compared to all

other alternatives, Alternative B protects the largest number of acres and increases the level of

protection for cultural and paleontological resources.

4.4.6.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Minerals

Alternative C opens 2,385,576 acres (99 percent) of BLM-administered surface to locatable

mineral exploration and development, which could occur on almost the same amount of wildlife

habitat as Alternative A and 40 percent more acres of wildlife habitat than Alternative B.

Alternative C does not withdraw additional acres; however, pre-FLPMA withdrawals would

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
888 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

remain and therefore close exploration and development in those areas. Alternative C allows

existing withdrawals in bighorn sheep and elk crucial winter range in the Whiskey Mountain and

East Fork areas to expire. Allowing locatable mineral exploration and development in crucial

winter range and parturition areas would adversely impact big game herds through loss of limited

and sensitive habitat. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to wildlife than

Alternative B, and slightly more adverse impacts than Alternative A.

Impacts from geothermal and oil and gas leasing under Alternative C would be similar to impacts

under Alternative A. Alternative C opens a total of 2,295,114 public surface acres (96 percent) to

geothermal leasing and 2,394,132 acres (more than 99 percent of the planning area) to oil and

gas leasing. Alternative C closes 99,096 acres to geothermal leasing and 78 acres to oil and gas

leasing. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to wildlife because more acres

would be available for development, resulting in a greater potential for larger losses of habitat,

increased habitat fragmentation, and increased disturbances from noise and human presence. It

is anticipated that approximately 774 acres would be disturbed each year under Alternative C,

402 of those acres being disturbed over the long term. Alternative C would result in almost the

same acres of disturbance as Alternative A and would disturb approximately 31 percent more

acres than Alternative B. Alternative B opens the fewest number of acres to mineral leasing

and potential future development; this would result in the least amount of habitat and habitat

connectivity loss and fragmentation and therefore greater beneficial impacts to wildlife. Overall,

Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to wildlife than Alternative B which could

lead to population declines, and almost the same impacts as Alternative A, including in the Beaver

Rim area and the proposed expanded Green Mountain ACEC.

Alternative C does not apply seasonal protections for big game crucial winter range, elk winter

range, and raptor nesting habitat, or seasonal protections for special status species (greater

sage-grouse and mountain plover) to O&M activities for developed projects. Alternative C

adverse impacts to wildlife from allowing disruptive activities during sensitive periods would be

the same as impacts under Alternative A and greater than impacts under Alternative B.

Alternative C impacts from geophysical exploration activities would be the same as impacts under

Alternative A. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to wildlife than Alternative

B because Alternative C opens more acres to geophysical activities that can adversely impact

habitats and cause nest abandonment or chick/young mortality.

Alternative C opens a total of 2,272,359 public surface acres (95 percent) to phosphate leasing. In

areas with phosphate potential, Alternative C opens 24,860 acres of crucial winter range and 1,367

acres of raptor nesting habitat to leasing, which would result in adverse impacts if the phosphate

resource was developed. Alternative C opens 95 percent of the acres with phosphate potential to

leasing and development, slightly more acres than Alternative A and 15 times more acres than

Alternative B. Alternative C impacts to wildlife from phosphate leasing and development would

be similar to impacts under Alternative A, except that Alternative C opens the Red Canyon area to

leasing and does not include limitations on phosphate development on the Lander Slope. The

Red Canyon area supports a large number of wintering elk and mule deer, and the loss of this

habitat from phosphate development would result in long-term adverse impacts to big game herds

that depend on the area. It is expected that elk and mule deer populations would decline in this

area under Alternative C.

Alternative C opens 2,252,801 surface acres in the planning area to mineral materials disposal. Of

these acres, 564,320 overlap big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat and 149,960

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 889

acres are in raptor nesting habitats. Alternative C closes approximately 141,409 surface acres

to mineral materials disposals, primarily in riparian-wetland areas, around greater sage-grouse

leks, and in pre-FLPMA withdrawal areas. Closing areas in sensitive wildlife habitats would

beneficially impact wildlife by protecting habitats from surface-disturbing activities. Alternative

C allows surface disturbance on more acres than alternatives A and B, and therefore would result

in the greatest potential for long-term adverse impacts to wildlife.

Lands

Under Alternative C, 5,436 acres are available for disposal by sale, exchange, or other methods,

with an additional 1,435 acres available but restricted. Alternative C impacts to wildlife from

land tenure adjustments would be the same as impacts under Alternative B and less than impacts

under Alternative A. Alternatives B and C retain the most acres in public ownership and subject

to management that considers wildlife values when making land use decisions.

Renewable Energy

Alternative C opens 2,284,235 acres (95 percent of the planning area) to wind-energy

development. Impacts to wildlife from wind-energy project locations and turbines in the

planning area would be the same as impacts under Alternative A. Alternatives A and C allow

for construction in sensitive or limited habitats for wildlife, which would result in more adverse

impacts than Alternative B, which closes these habitats to development.

ROWs and Corridors

Alternative C opens 2,247,157 acres (94 percent of the planning area) to ROWs, more than

all the other alternatives. Alternative C designates 660,908 acres across the planning area as

ROW corridors with widths up to 3 miles, except in the Dubois area. Alternative C excludes

ROWs on 147,053 acres, with most of the exclusion acres being primarily along NHTs and in

the Sweetwater Rocks. Alternative C avoids ROWs and corridors on another 11,714 acres.

Alternative C opens more acres to ROWs and corridors than the other alternatives, and would

result in the greatest potential for adverse impacts to wildlife.

Livestock Grazing Management

Alternative C opens the same areas to livestock grazing as Alternative A, and 12,839 more acres

than Alternative B. Alternative C opens public lands in the Spence/Moriarity WMA to livestock

grazing. These lands are isolated, unfenced, lack available water, and have limited to no vehicle

access. Allotment boundary fencing, water developments, and access roads would be necessary

to prevent livestock trespass on adjacent WGFD lands. Authorized grazing would result in

a reduction of forage needed to support the large concentrations of elk and bighorn sheep that

winter on the lands, and required grazing infrastructure would result in hazards to movement

and habitat fragmentation.

Under Alternative C, the BLM would utilize all livestock grazing management strategies,

including the increased use of infrastructure, to maintain, enhance, or achieve rangeland

health. Livestock management actions would disturb approximately 100 acres each year during

construction and/or development of range improvements, including reservoirs and pits, fences,

pipelines, and spring developments. It is assumed that approximately two reservoirs and pits, six

wells, four spring developments, and 49 miles of fence would be constructed each year during the

planning period. An increase in the amount of fencing in the planning area would increase habitat

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
890 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

fragmentation for many species of wildlife and increase the number of hazards to movement.

Developing more water developments to address livestock distribution concerns would alter the

way wildlife utilize the habitat. Range improvements under Alternative C would result in greater

loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitats than alternatives A and B. Alternative C allows higher

livestock utilization levels than Alternative B, which would increase the potential for livestock

and big game to compete for forage. Increasing water development could benefit wildlife in very

arid parts of the planning area. Alternative C prohibits salt or mineral supplements within 1⁄4 mile

of riparian-wetland areas, but allows the placement of salt or mineral supplements in all other

habitats to maximize range utilization. Increasing livestock grazing use in sensitive wildlife

habitats would likely result in wildlife displacement, increased competition for forage, and loss of

habitat around supplement locations. Fences and cattleguards would be modified or removed

to facilitate livestock movement and management, which might not provide any beneficial

impact to wildlife movement. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to wildlife

than alternatives A and B.

Recreation and Travel Management

Alternative C does not withdraw lands around developed recreation sites, campgrounds, and

interpretive sites, and opens lands to locatable mineral exploration and development. Mining

operations in these areas would result in habitat loss. The Dubois Mill Site is the only SRMA

Alternative C recognizes and it is closed to motorized travel. Similar to Alternative A, Alternative

C manages the other recreation management areas as ERMAs and opens them to motorized

travel. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to wildlife than alternatives A and

B, which include more restrictive management of developed recreation sites, campgrounds,

and interpretive sites.

Alternative C restricts motorized vehicle use on fewer acres than alternatives A and B. Alternative

C limits motorized travel to the less restrictive existing roads and trails in 98 percent of the

planning area, 5 percent more of the planning area than Alternative A and 10 more of the

planning area than Alternative B. Opening all existing roads and trails to motorized vehicle travel

would increase the amount of habitat lost, fragmented, and/or avoided by wildlife. Alternative

C designates which roads and trails are open to travel on 50,776 acres, 112,299 fewer acres

than Alternative A and 142,928 fewer acres than Alternative B. This could result in more

impacts to wildlife because less area would use designated roads and trails as a way to address

resource management impacts in sensitive wildlife habitat. Alternative C closes 5,472 acres to

motorized travel, fewer acres than Alternative A and substantially fewer acres than Alternative

B. Alternative C does not include any seasonal closures, which would result in disturbance and

displacement impacts to wintering wildlife in areas closed under alternatives A and B (primarily

big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat). Alternative C would result in adverse

impacts to wildlife through habitat loss, fragmentation, and avoidance in a greater percentage of

the planning area than alternatives A and B.

4.4.6.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not designate ACECs and manages areas designated under other alternatives

using standard stipulations. A TLS for surface-disturbing activities on crucial winter range and

near raptor nesting sites would result in short-term beneficial impacts. Plans of Operation for

locatable mineral activities on lands under Alternative A are not required under Alternative C,

which could result in long-term habitat loss and fragmentation in sensitive wildlife habitats if

exploration occurs. Alternative C allows surface-disturbing activities on crucial winter range

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 891

during non-winter months, depending on the type and size of permitted actions, which would

result in the loss or fragmentation of habitat. Crucial winter range in the Dubois, Red Canyon,

and Lander Slope areas is limited due to high-elevation snows, the availability of exposed forage,

and the urbanization of surrounding lands, therefore wintering elk and bighorn sheep depend

on lower-elevation public lands extensively.

Disturbed habitats would not be available when animals are highly dependent on them to provide

winter forage and cover. Healthy, intact, and available winter range is critical for the survival

of wildlife during the most stressful period of the year, as starvation and exposure to extreme

weather can result in animal mortality. Under Alternative C, surface-disturbing activities would

result in the loss and fragmentation of habitat essential for these species and could result in

population declines, an increase in depredation of adjacent private or state lands, and forage

conflicts with livestock.

Alternative C would allow locatable mineral withdrawals in the Whiskey Mountain and East

Fork areas that are subject to expiration to expire and would not pursue withdrawal extensions.

After existing withdrawals expire in the Whiskey Mountain and East Fork areas between 2010

and 2020, Alternative C opens those areas to locatable mineral exploration and development. A

withdrawal for approximately 9,600 acres in the Whiskey Mountain area is set to expire in 2010

and an extension is currently being pursued. If the withdrawal becomes final, these acres would

be withdrawn for much of planning period. At the point the withdrawal would expire in another

20 years, an extension would not be pursued.

Surface facilities or habitat modifications that prevent or interfere with wintering animals reaching

escape habitat could lead to increased mortality from predators. Bighorn sheep are not tolerant of

human activities and animals utilizing these winter habitats would avoid the area, which could

result in population declines. Reducing opportunities to hunt and view bighorn sheep would result

in adverse impacts to recreation opportunities and to local economies that depend on hunting and

tourism revenue. Allowing surface-disturbing activities or facilities in the Whiskey Mountain and

East Fork areas would adversely impact wildlife by promoting habitat loss and fragmentation on

crucial winter range, which would like threaten the long-term viability of the herds.

Under Alternative C, forage in the Whiskey Mountain and East Fork areas would be available

for all grazing animals with no preference for wildlife needs. Forage competition can lead to

poor animal fitness and low reproductive rates and high utilization of habitats can result in less

productive rangelands and long-term habitat loss for wildlife. Alternative C would result in

adverse impacts to wildlife from management that opens the Whiskey Mountain and East Fork

areas to livestock grazing, compared to the beneficial impacts under alternatives A and B.

Alternative C opens the Green Mountain and Beaver Rim areas to energy development, including

wind energy and does not require an MLP. The area has high potential for wind-energy

development and surface disturbance from development would result in long-term loss of habitat.

If wind-energy projects were established, the area would likely be unsuitable for wintering elk

due to adverse impacts from turbine, road, and powerline infrastructure, and noise and human

presence. The area also has high potential for uranium and Alternative C would allow exploration

activities without the benefit of the project proponent completing a Plan of Operations.

Exploration activities could lead to elk crucial winter range habitat loss and/or fragmentation.

Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to wildlife than alternatives A and B.

Alternative C allows surface-disturbing activities, including the placement of surface facilities,

and disruptive activities along Beaver Rim. This would adversely impact raptors by reducing

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
892 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

available habitat for prey species, creating hazards around nest and perch sites, and allowing

human presence or noise that could cause birds to abandon nests or young. There could be

long-term adverse impacts from a reduction in available nesting habitat or a reduction in nesting

success.

The WGFD owns land in the Whiskey Mountain, East Fork, and Red Canyon areas to provide

crucial winter range, primarily for bighorn sheep, elk, and mule deer. The WGFD purchased

much of this land because big game crucial winter range was given priority when managing the

surrounding public lands. Alternative C could reduce the value of surrounding WGFD lands if

public lands are developed.

Overall, Alternative C would result in the greatest potential for habitat loss and fragmentation, the

greatest potential to impair connectivity between seasonal habitats, the least amount of habitat

protection for big game winter ranges, and the greatest disturbance to wintering wildlife of all

the alternatives.

Alternative C recognizes lands within 1⁄4 mile of NHTs and the CDNST as part of the NLCS

landscape and limits management that restricts development to Classes I and II trail segments of

the NHTs. Alternative C would result in fewer beneficial impacts to wildlife along NHTs than

alternatives A and B, and almost the same beneficial impacts along the CDNST as Alternative A.

Alternative C does not recommend NWSRS-eligible waterway segments as suitable for inclusion

in the NWSRS and does not manage those segments specifically to preserve their suitability.

Alternative C manages the Sweetwater River Unit and associated wildlife habitat under BLM

Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas, which is the same as Alternative A and

less protective than Alternative B. Alternative C manages the Baldwin Creek Unit using standard

stipulations that are less protective than Alternative A (ACEC prescriptions) or Alternative B, and

would result in the greatest potential for adverse impacts to wildlife species. Overall, Alternative

B prescribes the highest level of protection and therefore would result in the most beneficial

impacts to wildlife.

4.4.6.3.5. Alternative D

4.4.6.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D requires that surfacing-disturbing activities and facilities be minimized to the

smallest footprint practical to minimize the impact to wildlife from habitat loss and fragmentation,

except when safety and maintenance issues require a larger footprint, and applies Required

Design Features to reduce adverse impacts from development. Alternative D applies mule deer

crucial winter range timing limitations to winter range. Alternative D management is similar

to Alternative B, except that Alternative D allows a larger footprint when needed based on

site-specific issues. Alternative D results in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife than alternatives

A and C. Alternative D defines exploratory locatable mineral activities in Core Area under a

Notice as undue or unnecessary degradation if occurring from March 15 to June 30. Alternative D

has extensive locatable mineral withdrawal for the benefit of many resources, including mule

deer, elk, moose, and greater sage-grouse. Alternative D prohibits surface-disturbing activities

within 200 feet of identified reptile hibernacula sites, less distance than Alternative B but more

than alternatives A and C, which do not afford protection of hibernacula sites.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 893

Alternative D establishes DDAs in the Shoshoni-Lysite area, the Gas Hills, and in the Beaver

Creek area to focus on energy development. Surface use and TLSs to protect wildlife and

special status wildlife would be applied at the leasing stage but exceptions would be frequently

authorized to exempt crucial winter range protection to facilitate development. Exceptions would

not be routinely authorized for protections for special status species. Granting exceptions for

crucial winter range would adversely impact big game using the areas, but due to the level of

development activity that occurs in the DDAs, these areas are not considered optimum habitat.

Alternative D applies an MLP to the Beaver Rim area. The parturition area south of the Green

Mountain ACEC is closed to oil and gas leasing to protect the important elk calving area.

Alternative D allows wind-energy development in big game crucial winter range, parturition

habitat, migration corridors, and raptor concentration areas on a case-by-case basis. Adverse

impacts under Alternative D would be the same as under alternatives A and C and greater than

under Alternative B, which closes these habitats to wind-energy development.

Alternative D applies a TLS for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in identified winter

and crucial winter range for elk and mule deer. Alternative D would result in impacts the same as

alternatives A and B and more beneficial impacts than Alternative C, which applies a TLS only to

elk crucial winter range. Alternative D (as well as alternatives A and B) protects approximately

167,000 more acres of elk winter range than Alternative C.

Alternative D applies a TLS to surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within 3⁄4 mile of active

nests for all raptor species, except ferruginous hawk, for which Alternative D protects the area

within 1 mile of nests. Ferruginous hawks are more sensitive to disturbance and require a larger

buffer to protect egg incubation, hatching, and chick fledging processes. The protected period

is February 1 through July 31 for raptor species other than northern goshawk and burrowing

owl. Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities are prohibited from April 1 to August 31 for

northern goshawk and April 1 to September 15 for burrowing owl. See the Special Status Species

– Wildlife section for more discussion on ferruginous hawks, northern goshawks, and burrowing

owl. The protection distance and/or period for nests can be adjusted based on site-specific and

species-specific information. Alternative D uses a larger buffer and/or more specific nesting

dates, and therefore would result in greater beneficial impacts to raptors than alternatives A and C.

Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts than Alternative D for the same reasons.

Alternative D does not allow new fence construction in identified big game migration corridors

unless a fence is identified as critical to the success of a comprehensive grazing management plan.

It is unknown where and how much fence would be constructed in migration corridors under

Alternative D. Existing fences would be removed in identified corridors as opportunities arise,

with the goal of no net gain of fence. Within big game migration corridors, Alternative D would

result in fewer adverse impacts than alternatives A and C, and slightly more adverse impacts than

Alternative B. Outside of migration corridors, existing fences would also be modified or removed,

on a case-by-case basis, to address habitat fragmentation and movement concerns. This action

would result in the same impact outside big game migration corridors as alternatives A and C, and

a less beneficial impact than Alternative B.

To prevent habitat loss and/or modification, Alternative D, on a case-by-case basis and in

cooperation with adjacent landowners and/or state and county governments, avoids authorizing

new road development in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat and closes and

reclaims redundant roads and applies Required Design Features to reduce road density and

wildlife habitat fragmentation. These actions would result in impacts the same as Alternative A,

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
894 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

greater beneficial impacts than Alternative C, and fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

In these same sensitive habitats, Alternative D allows livestock water development projects in

big game crucial winter range and parturition areas only if the projects are critical to the success

of a comprehensive grazing management plan and impacts to habitat can be mitigated. While

improving range health would be a benefit, water development projects would likely increase

forage harvest, therefore Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts than alternatives

A and C, and slightly fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

Alternative D considers forage requirements to meet big game herd objectives when making

forage allocations in the planning area to ensure adequate forage is available for wildlife.

Alternative D would result in slightly greater beneficial impacts than Alternative A, much greater

beneficial impacts than Alternative C, and fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B. On a

case-by-case basis, Alternative D manages vegetation on crucial winter range or parturition

areas to benefit the species that requires the range and extends seasonal protections to mule deer

winter range. This action, when undertaken, would result in the same impacts to wildlife and

wildlife habitat as Alternative A, less beneficial impacts than Alternative B and more beneficial

impacts than Alternative C.

4.4.6.3.5.2. Resources

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative D manages 4,954 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics as non-WSA lands

with wilderness characteristics, slightly fewer acres than Alternative B. Alternative D closes

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to motorized travel and limits mechanized

travel to designated routes, which would beneficially impact wildlife but to a lesser extent than

Alternative B which prohibits both motorized and mechanized travel in the area. Alternative

D would result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife than alternatives A and C, which do

not manage non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and allow motorized travel on all

existing roads and trails in lands with wilderness characteristics. Non-WSA lands with wilderness

characteristics within the Whiskey Mountain ACEC are subject to the ACEC prescriptions under

Alternative D, which would beneficially impact wildlife.

Fire and Fuels

Under Alternative D, there would be approximately 500 acres of prescribed fire and 500 acres of

mechanical treatment conducted each year to address rangeland fuel and fire concerns. Alternative

D allows the use of prescribed fire (and the resultant risks of unintended consequences) on 200

more acres per year than alternatives A and C and 1,500 fewer acres per year than Alternative B.

Alternative D management allows the full range of suppression tactics based on the resources

at risk to address wildland fire, including the use of heavy equipment. This action would have

beneficial impacts on wildlife because long-term adverse impacts to sensitive habitats could be

prevented with the selection of the appropriate suppression tactic. Alternative D could increase the

risk of adverse impacts to wildlife habitat from the use of heavy equipment in suppression efforts.

Vegetation

Alternative D manages forests and woodlands using a full range of silviculture practices in

response to forest/woodland health conditions, wildlife habitat needs, and the demand for forest

products. Treatment of forest insect and disease outbreaks and the implementation of forest

replanting is managed on a case-by-case basis under Alternative D. Alternative D allows

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 895

clear-cuts, with other resource values and silviculture objectives determining the sizes and

locations of clear-cuts. This management, which is almost the same as under Alternative A,

would result in both short-term adverse and long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife.

Approximately 600 acres per year of short-term disturbance are anticipated from forest and

woodland management (mechanical treatments and forest product sale areas) over the planning

period under Alternative D. Treatments would result in both beneficial and adverse impacts to

wildlife, depending on the species and the sizes of treatment patches.

Under Alternative D, forest management plans would be developed for the Green Mountain

Primary Forest Resource Area and as funding permits for the South Pass and Dubois Primary

Forest Resource Areas to address the sale of commercial and over-the-counter forest products,

enhancement of forest health conditions, and the management of pine beetle infestations.

Alternative D prohibits commercial forest product sales that could adversely impact the

availability of wildlife habitat and increase noise and human presence in the Lander Slope and

Red Canyon areas, unless the sales are needed to address human health and safety issues or

improve forest health. Alternative D would result in fewer adverse impacts to wildlife habitat

than alternatives A and C, and slightly fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

Grasslands and shrublands are managed to achieve the vegetation attributes described in the

NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions, the same management as under Alternative A. Alternative D

would result in greater beneficial impacts from managing for a balance of herbaceous and woody

vegetation than Alternative C, but not as much as Alternative B, which focuses on managing plant

communities specifically for wildlife. Alternative D utilizes vegetative treatments to alter plant

community composition to achieve rangeland health objectives. Alternative D would result in

fewer adverse impacts to wildlife than Alternative C, which uses treatments to facilitate livestock

grazing management that could conflict with wildlife habitat objectives. Overall, Alternative D

would result in slightly fewer beneficial impacts to wildlife from grassland/shrubland management

actions than Alternative B, almost the same beneficial impacts as Alternative A, and more adverse

impacts than Alternative C.

Alternative D prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of water and riparian-wetland

areas outside of DDAs, which would result in impacts the same as Alternative A, slightly

fewer adverse impacts than Alternative C, and much more beneficial impacts than Alternative

B. Inside DDAs, Alternative D allows surface-disturbing activities closer than 500 feet if

equivalent riparian-wetland protection could be achieved. This management would beneficially

impact wildlife by protecting vital riparian-wetlands and adjacent upland habitats from loss,

degradation, or fragmentation, although not as much as under Alternative B, which prohibits

surface disturbance within a wider buffer around all riparian-wetland areas. Alternative D

uses all tools, including range improvement projects, travel management strategies, and lease

stipulations to improve riparian-wetland areas and move them toward PFC. Healthy and diverse

riparian-wetland habitats would have beneficial impacts on wildlife, but could adversely impact

wildlife by increasing fencing and livestock grazing levels associated with water developments.

Alternative D would result in slightly more adverse impacts to wildlife than Alternative A, much

more adverse impacts than Alternative B, and greater beneficial impacts than Alternative C.

Wildlife

Alternative D manages lands from Hudson Atlantic City with protections for wildlife and other

values including viewshed and cultural resources. Oil and gas leasing is subject to an NSO, and

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
896 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

the area is closed for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry as well as other protections. This

will benefit the wildlife in the area but with more adverse impacts than Alternative B.

Fish and Special Status Species

Similar to alternatives A and C, on a case-by-case basis, Alternative D allows BLM projects that

remove or deplete water from fish-bearing streams unless the action would result in the loss of a

sustainable fish population. Because Alternative D does not allow projects that would completely

de-water a stream, it would result in slightly fewer adverse impacts to wildlife than alternatives

A and C, but more adverse impacts than Alternative B, which does not allow water-depleting

projects.

Alternative D opens the designated greater sage-grouse Core Area to oil and gas leasing subject to

thresholds for project locations and acres of disturbance. Limiting the amount of disturbance in

the greater sage-grouse Core Area would result in beneficial impacts to other wildlife occupying

the same lands. Alternative D would result in fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B

and fewer adverse impacts than alternatives A and C. Greater sage-grouse lek buffers under

Alternative D are the same as under Alternative B for the Core Area and the same as under

alternatives A and C outside of the Core Area. Alternatives B and D would protect more wildlife

habitat in the Core Area in the long term; Alternative D would protect fewer acres outside the

Core Area than Alternative B. Alternative D applies a seasonal nesting TLS to all suitable nesting

habitat in the greater sage-grouse Core Area, which would protect more acres of habitat than all

the other alternatives and result in beneficial impacts to nesting neotropical migrants and raptors

utilizing these same acres.

Alternative D allows livestock water developments in greater sage-grouse nesting habitat so long

as they would be compatible with, and contribute to, improved greater sage-grouse habitat.

Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts to other wildlife species that use these

same habitats than alternatives A and C, but fewer than Alternative B.

Wild Horses

Like alternatives B and C, Alternative D establishes scenic loops for viewing wild horses in the

planning area. Alternative D would result in a slightly greater risk of adverse impacts to wildlife

from increased vehicle use and human presence related to viewing activities than Alternative A.

Alternative D considers impacts to wild horses when authorizing new fencing projects, and fences

would be removed or modified as opportunities arise to facilitate movement between wild horse

herds. Not allowing new fences and removing/modifying existing fences would beneficially

impact wildlife by reducing hazards to wildlife movement. Alternative D would result in greater

beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C and fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

The area of protection surrounding cultural and paleontological resources under Alternative D is

much the same as the area of protection under Alternative A, and Alternative D protects more acres

than Alternative C. Alternative D protects fewer acres of wildlife habitat associated with cultural

and paleontological sites than Alternative B, particularly related to mineral exploration and

development, and therefore would result in fewer beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative B.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 897

4.4.6.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Minerals

Alternative D allows for locatable mineral entry on 2,351,399 acres of mineral estate (98 of the

planning area). Adverse impacts to wildlife from habitat loss, modification, and/or fragmentation

as a result of exploration and development activity would occur on 1 percent fewer acres

than Alternative A, 2 percent fewer acres than Alternative C, and 56 percent more acres than

Alternative B. Alternative D pursues continuation of the existing locatable mineral withdrawals

protecting bighorn sheep and elk crucial winter range and parturition habitat in the Whiskey

Mountain and East Fork ACECs. Like Alternative B, Alternative D pursues withdrawal of 3,314

additional acres in the expanded portion of the East Fork ACEC. In order to protect multiple

resources, extensive areas are withdrawn from locatable mineral entry, which benefits wildlife

using those areas. Withdrawing the area from locatable mineral entry would provide long-term

protection of crucial winter range needed to maintain mule deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep,

and greater sage-grouse populations. This larger withdrawal includes a withdrawal for 3,897

acres in the Johnny Behind the Rocks RMZ, which would prevent the loss of wildlife habitat

and beneficially impact species using the area. Alternative D would result in greater beneficial

impacts to wildlife than alternatives A and C and more adverse impacts than Alternative B.

Alternative D opens a total of 2,112,285 acres to geothermal leasing and opens 2,642,527 acres

to oil and gas leasing, 1 percent fewer acres than Alternative A and 2 percent fewer acres

than Alternative C. Alternative D opens 76 percent more acres to leasing than Alternative

B, which opens the fewest acres to mineral leasing and potential development. Alternative D

makes available fewer acres of crucial winter range and parturition habitat to exploration and

development than alternatives A and C but more acres than Alternative B. It is anticipated that

approximately 724 acres would be disturbed each year through oil and gas development activities

under Alternative D, and 375 of those acres would be disturbed for the long term. Alternative

D would result in less wildlife habitat and habitat connectivity loss and fragmentation would

occur from new lease development than alternatives A and C and more than Alternative B.

Alternative D closes the entire Dubois area to oil and gas leasing; therefore, no habitat loss and

fragmentation from lease development activities. Alternative D would have nearly the same

beneficial impacts to wildlife in all statutory categories as Alternative B and greater beneficial

impacts than alternatives A and C.

Alternative D’s management of the Beaver Rim area has more beneficial impacts to wildlife than

alternatives A and C through its application of an MLP. This is, however, less beneficial than

Alternative B which closes the area to oil and gas leasing to protect greater sage-grouse.

Alternative D extends seasonal protections for big game crucial winter range, elk, and mule deer

winter range, and raptor nesting habitat, and extends seasonal protections for special status species

(greater sage-grouse and mountain plover) to activities deemed detrimental to wildlife associated

with the O&M of developed projects on lands that lie outside DDAs. Appendix I (p. 1535) lists

activities subject to seasonal protections. Alternative D does not apply seasonal protections to

these same activities inside DDAs. Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts to

wildlife during the sensitive winter and nesting periods than alternatives A and C and less than

Alternative B, which applies seasonal protections to O&M activities on all lands.

Under Alternative D, lands closed to mineral leasing or subject to NSO are also closed to

geophysical activities. Lands open to leasing are open to geophysical activities and subject to

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
898 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

motorized travel limitations and restrictions on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities for the

area. Closing habitats to geophysical activities would prevent adverse impacts from cross-country

motorized travel and wildlife displacement. Restricting geophysical activities during sensitive

times such as the breeding, nesting, and winter periods would prevent abandonment or loss of

nests or young, which would result in short-term beneficial impacts to wildlife. Alternative D

closes more wildlife habitat to geophysical activities than alternatives A and C and less than

Alternative B.

Alternative D opens 37 percent fewer acres to phosphate leasing than Alternative A, 39 percent

fewer acres than Alternative C, and 66 percent more acres than Alternative B. Closing lands to

phosphate leasing would beneficially impact wildlife by providing long-term protection of habitat.

Under Alternative D, elk and mule deer crucial winter range in the Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic

City area and north of the Lysite DDA to phosphate leasing, which would benefit all wildlife,

including shrubland-obligates. Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife

than alternatives A and C, because Alternative D closes more wildlife habitat to phosphate

leasing; Alternative D opens more acres to phosphate leasing than Alternative B, but only a small

amount, so it would have somewhat more adverse impacts to wildlife.

Alternative D opens 1,853,090 surface acres to mineral materials disposals, many more acres

than Alternative B, but fewer acres than alternatives A and C, which means less wildlife habitat,

including sensitive or limited habitats, could be lost, modified, or fragmented from development

activities. Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C,

but more adverse impacts than Alternative B.

Lands

Alternative D identifies 8,073 acres of lands available for disposal by sale, exchange, or

other methods, with an additional 6,665 acres available with restrictions on post-disposal use.

Alternative D increases the land identified for disposal based on recommendations by the public

and to protect human health and safety. There would be less risk of adverse impacts from the loss

or alteration of wildlife habitat under alternatives B, C, and A than under Alternative D, because

Alternative D makes more lands available for disposal.

Renewable Energy

Alternative D opens 224,289 acres (9 percent of the planning area) to wind-energy development.

Alternative D would result in a greater risk of adverse impacts to wildlife from habitat loss,

fragmentation, and avoidance, particularly in sensitive or limited habitats, than Alternative B,

which opens only 27 percent of the planning area. However, Alternative D would result in fewer

adverse impacts from wind-energy development than alternatives A and C, which opens 88

percent and 95 percent of the planning area, respectively.

ROWs and Corridors

Similar to the mineral and other realty management actions discussed above, Alternative D opens

fewer acres to ROWs than alternatives A and C and more acres than Alternative B. Alternative D

excludes 35 percent of the planning area to ROWs and designates avoids 44 percent as ROW

avoidance areas. ROW exclusion areas encompass 246,606 acres of big game crucial winter

range and parturition habitat under Alternative D, and ROW avoidance areas encompass 620,624

acres of big game crucial winter range and parturition areas. Alternative D would result in greater

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 899

beneficial impacts to wildlife from excluding or avoiding more lands than alternatives A and C,

and more adverse impacts from closing fewer lands than Alternative B.

Alternative D’s corridor designation is more similar to Alternative C than to alternatives A and B

and would thus have the same adverse and beneficial impacts as Alternative C although to a lesser

extent. Fewer corridors would result in less habitat fragmentation particularly since all designated

corridors are located in areas when some disturbance exists. However, to the extent that additional

disturbances occur as new ROWs are authorized, the amount of habitat loss increases and reduces

the likelihood of successful reclamation, which is an adverse impact to wildlife. Similar impacts

result from BLM’s policy to require that new ROWs be co-located with existing disturbance.

Livestock Grazing Management

Alternative D opens approximately 97 percent of the planning area to grazing, almost the same as

the other alternatives. Alternative D closes 7,566 more acres than alternatives A and C and 5,273

fewer acres than Alternative B. The majority of the lands in the expanded portion of the East Fork

ACEC and an allotment pasture in the Whiskey Mountain ACEC are closed to eliminate forage

competition with wintering elk and bighorn sheep as well as the need to construct additional

livestock control fencing.

Alternative D livestock management actions would disturb approximately 42 acres each year

during construction and/or development of range improvements. Alternative D allows fewer

range improvement projects overall than alternatives A and C, but allows for the construction of

more riparian-wetland protection fencing than Alternative A. Adverse impacts to wildlife from

the construction of additional fences would be greater under Alternative D than under alternatives

A and B and less than under Alternative C. Fences and cattleguards installed for livestock

management are removed or modified on a case-by-case basis. Type E fencing will be required

for any new or modified highway ROW fence except in those areas bordering domestic sheep

allotments or in areas where another fence standard is preferable. This management action would

result in almost the same impacts as all the other alternatives.

Alternative D does not set utilization levels but determines this on a site-specific basis and allows

new range infrastructure when a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy is in place. Like Alternative C,

where higher plant utilization is subsequently authorized, the potential for forage competition

between wildlife and livestock would increase; Alternative B reduces that potential.

Like Alternative B, Alternative D prohibits the placement of salt or supplements within 1⁄2 mile of

riparian-wetland areas and within 0.6 mile of greater sage-grouse leks. This action would prevent

increased plant utilization and vegetation trampling in these key habitats, which would result in

beneficial impacts to wildlife in all statutory categories. Alternative D would result in greater

beneficial impacts to wildlife than alternatives A and C, which prohibit supplements only within

1⁄4 mile of riparian-wetland areas.

Overall, livestock grazing under Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts to wildlife

and their habitats than alternatives A and C and more adverse impacts than Alternative B.

Recreation and Travel Management

Alternative D impacts to wildlife from recreation management actions would be the same as

Alternative B, except that SRMAs and distinct ERMAs would constitute fewer acres under

Alternative D. Management prescriptions that reduce or eliminate surface-disturbing activities

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
900 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

(i.e., NSO for mineral leasing and locatable mineral withdrawal) in the Johnny Behind the

Rocks Area and the Dubois Mill Site would provide long-term protection of wildlife habitat.

Several SRMAs are in the Lander Slope ACEC and would be managed according to the ACEC

prescriptions; this also would beneficially impact wildlife by limiting surface-disturbing activities.

Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife than alternatives A and C and

fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

Alternative D limits motorized travel on more acres than alternatives A and C and on fewer acres

than Alternative B. Alternative D opens 92 percent of the planning area to existing roads and

trails, opens 6 percent to designated roads and trails, and closes 1 percent to motorized and

mechanized travel. Areas closed would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to wildlife by

eliminating disturbance or displacement from vehicle use and providing long-term protection

from habitat loss and fragmentation. Most of the areas closed to motorized travel are open to

mechanized travel under Alternative D. These areas would result in slightly fewer beneficial

impacts to wildlife than the areas closed to all travel.

Alternative D subjects more acres to seasonal travel limitations than alternatives A and C. The

increase in acres occurs primarily in the East Fork ACEC. Dates for seasonal travel limitations

in the Whiskey Mountain and East Fork areas are adjusted to match seasonal closure dates on

adjacent WGFD lands. Seasonal travel limitations would protect wintering bighorn sheep and

elk from stress and disturbance during the critical winter months. Using consistent closing and

opening dates across the area would benefit the public and should help with compliance and

enforcement of the closures.

Overall trail and travel management actions under Alternative D would result in fewer adverse

impacts to wildlife than alternatives A and C and fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

4.4.6.3.5.4. Special Designations

The NTMC limits the amount of surface disturbance that will occur, including requiring the use of

designated corridors, which beneficially impacts wildlife and their habitat.

Alternative D designates eight ACECs totaling 243,838 acres (10 percent of the planning area),

5 percent more of the planning area than Alternative A, 10 percent more of the planning area

than Alternative C, and 52 percent less of the planning area than Alternative B. Management

would result in direct beneficial impacts to wildlife in the long term through protections from

habitat loss or fragmentation by (1) closing lands to mineral leasing, (2) extending existing or

pursuing new locatable mineral entry withdrawals, (3) closing or limiting motorized vehicle use,

(4) excluding major utility systems, ROWs, and wind-energy development, and (5) prohibiting

other surface-disturbing activities not compatible with retaining or enhancing the areas' values.

The East Fork and Green Mountain ACECs are larger under Alternative D than under Alternative

A, increasing the amount of crucial winter range and parturition habitat covered by ACEC

prescriptions. Alternative D does not designate the Dubois Badlands area as an ACEC and

incorporates the 200 non-contiguous acres to the east of the badlands into the East Fork ACEC.

This would not result in additional adverse impacts to wildlife because management under BLM

Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas would still protect wildlife habitat in

the Dubois Badlands WSA. Alternative D closes crucial elk and bighorn sheep winter range

and parturition habitat in the East Fork ACEC and part of the Whiskey Mountain ACEC to

livestock grazing to eliminate forage competition between wildlife and livestock. Alternative D

management of mineral and realty actions in the Whiskey Mountain and East Fork ACECs is the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 901

same as alternatives A and B, and are the most restrictive possible. Alternative D designates the

Twin Creek ACEC, which is a much smaller portion of the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater

Sage-Grouse ACEC designated under Alternative B. To prevent adverse impacts to wildlife

habitat, oil and gas leasing in the Twin Creek ACEC would be subject to an NSO stipulation, the

ACEC would be closed to phosphate leasing and mineral materials disposals, recommended for

withdrawal from locatable mineral entry, and avoided for major ROWs outside the designated

corridor. The Beaver Rim, Lander Slope, and Red Canyon ACECs contain the same number of

acres under Alternative D as Alternative A, although Alternative D has slightly more restrictive

prescriptions regarding surfacing-disturbing activities that would have a beneficial impact on

wildlife. Withdrawing the Lander Slope, Twin Creek, and Red Canyon ACECs from locatable

mineral exploration and development would provide long-term protection of big game crucial

winter range.

Alternative D includes more protections along NHTs and the CDNST than Alternative A except

for the part of the CDNST in the Crooks Gap area. Additional constraints for surface-disturbing

activities to protect the integrity and setting of trails would have a beneficial impact on wildlife

habitat. Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife from trail protections

than alternatives A and C and fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

Alternative D recommends NWSRS-eligible waterway segment on Warm Springs Creek Segment

1, Baldwin Creek, and the Sweetwater River as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS and

manages those segments in accordance with the Lander Slope ACEC and Sweetwater Canyon

WSA prescriptions, respectively; this management constrains mineral and realty developments.

Alternative D includes more protections from surface-disturbing activities than Alternative A

because Alternative D increases protections in the Lander Slope ACEC and Sweetwater Canyon

WSA. Alternative D also would result in greater beneficial impacts than Alternative C, but more

adverse impacts than Alternative B.

Alternative D management actions would result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife and

wildlife habitat than alternatives A and C and less beneficial impacts than Alternative B. Although

Alternative D does not close the expanded Green Mountain ACEC to oil and gas leasing, the most

important parturition areas are NSO, which beneficially impacts the elk.

4.4.7. Special Status Species – Plants

For purposes of this analysis, special status plant species addressed in this section currently

include 12 BLM sensitive plant species known to occur in the planning area, three federally listed

plant species that occur or for which there is potential habitat, and one federally listed plant

species that occurs downstream along the Platte River and could be affected by actions in the

planning area. The implementation of certain management actions could impact special status

plants species, depending on the alternative. This section describes the direct, indirect, short-term,

and long-term impacts to special status plants under each alternative and also whether those

impacts would be adverse or beneficial.

Typically, management actions or resource uses that contribute to a decrease in abundance or

distribution of a special status plant species are considered adverse. Conversely, management

actions or measures that protect a plant species from disturbance, improve habitat, or lead to

increased population or viability are considered beneficial.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants
902 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

For purposes of this analysis, direct impacts are damage to or loss of individual plants, loss of

habitat or habitat quality, loss of pollinators, and loss of soil seed banks. Examples of direct

impacts include surface-disturbing activities, herbivory, trampling, fire, plant collection, OHV

use, or geophysical operations. Indirect impacts include the loss of suitable habitat for future

colonization. Conversely, an action that aids in the protection of suitable habitat is an indirect

beneficial impact.

4.4.7.1. Summary of Impacts

Activities that disturb soil and vegetation communities would directly impact special status

plants. Alternative B provides the greatest protection from surface-disturbing activities because it

allows the fewest acres of surface disturbance, requires surveys before authorizing activities that

would prevent plant loss, and establishes limits on habitat loss, modification, or fragmentation.

Conversely, Alternative C has the greatest potential to result in adverse impacts to special status

plants because it allows the most acres of surface disturbance and does not establish habitat loss

limits except as required to protect ESA-listed species. Alternative D is similar in many respects

to Alternative A, but Alternative D includes management actions to minimize habitat loss and

fragmentation not included under Alternative A and increases protections in areas important for

other resources, particularly wildlife, special status wildlife species, cultural resources, and

special designation areas that also protects special status plants.

4.4.7.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Surface-disturbing activities in special status plant communities will adversely impact special

status plant species. Impacts to special status plants and their habitats will be more adverse

than impacts to common plant species.

● Where resources overlap, management actions associated with protecting wildlife habitats and

cultural resources directly benefit special status plant species.

● Establishing management actions that preclude or restrict development, including those

specifically focused on conserving special status plant species, are assumed to benefit special

status plant species where populations overlap with management action boundaries.

● Because neither the locations of all special status plant species in the planning area nor the

locations of potential actions under the different alternatives are not known, this impact

analysis is based on the amount of vegetation and soil disturbed, the potential for spread of

INNS, and the level of restrictions placed on BLM actions that would protect special status

plant species.

● The total amount of new surface disturbance allowed under an alternative is a good index of

potential impacts to special status plants. Success of reclamation measures prescribed as a

condition of development is unknown, and could underestimate the potential impact of surface

disturbance on special status plant populations.

● Minimizing surface disturbance and restoring or reestablishing native vegetation reduces

adverse impacts to special status plants. The sooner vegetation is reestablished, the greater

the benefit to special status plant species.

● As more monitoring and survey data become available, additional populations of existing

special status plants could be found.

● The BLM will continue to manage plant species listed on the BLM Wyoming State Director’s

Sensitive Species List in accordance with BLM Manuals 6840, 1740, and 1745. Over the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 903

planning period, plant species could be added or removed from the BLM Sensitive Species

list as additional data are collected and evaluated.

● The USFWS has jurisdiction over the management of threatened and endangered plant

species. Actions that could impact ESA-listed species are subject to appropriate ESA Section

7 consultation with the USFWS.

● Over the planning period, the USFWS could list or delist plant species as threatened

and endangered as additional data are collected and evaluated. Most species delisted or

downgraded from proposed or candidate status will be included on the BLM sensitive species

list.

4.4.7.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Management actions and resource uses that could adversely impact special status plant species

and their habitats include all surface-disturbing activities, concentrated grazing by livestock, wild

horses, or native ungulates, control of INNS, OHV use, geophysical exploration, fire management,

and water-depleting activities, especially those involving the Platte River watershed.

Conversely, resource uses prescribed under the alternatives that could result in adverse impacts

to special status plant species could be limited by management actions necessary to protect

these plant species.

4.4.7.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Although the types of impacts to special status plant species under the alternatives would be

similar, the intensity of impacts would vary by alternative. Impacts that result in a decline in

abundance or distribution of special status plant species can generally be divided into two broad

categories: (1) impacts that cause direct loss of plants through surface disturbance, geophysical

exploration, trampling, herbivory, fire, or INNS treatment and (2) impacts that cause indirect loss

of plants through alteration of habitat by fragmentation, soil compaction and erosion, alteration of

hydrologic regimes, loss of pollinators, and introduction or proliferation of INNS. Direct impacts

typically are short-term, whereas indirect impacts can be short-term or long-term.

Under all alternatives, actions that could impact any federally listed plant species will require

consultation and coordination with the USFWS to ensure compliance with the terms of Statewide

Programmatic Section 7 consultations (conservation measures, letters of concurrence, biological

assessments, and biological opinions) and to develop and implement protective measures. These

measures specifically include a locatable mineral withdrawal and fire suppression pre-planning to

protect desert yellowhead critical habitat from disturbance and applying a NSO stipulation to

mineral leasing activities to protect the two known desert yellowhead populations.

Water can adversely impact certain special status plant species that occur in riparian-wetland

habitats if it is associated with flooding or excessive sedimentation. Such conditions could cause

direct plant loss from established plants being uprooted or water and silt covering plants, reducing

photosynthesis. Conversely, actions that improve water quality or reduce the chances of flooding

are beneficial to riparian-wetland plant communities.

Direct plant mortality and habitat loss can occur from surface-disturbing activities, including those

related to mineral and realty actions. Geophysical activities that utilize vibroseis buggies can

crush plants and result in plant mortality. Surface-disturbing activities also can indirectly impact

special status plants by contributing to soil erosion and transporting INNS into plant habitats.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants
904 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Due to the patchy distribution of most special status plant populations, surface disturbance can

result in habitat fragmentation, isolating populations and preventing cross-pollination needed to

maintain the species.

Forest management actions would directly impact limber pine, a BLM sensitive species.

The presence of forest insects, particularly the pine beetle, and disease threatens limber pine

populations in the planning area. Silviculture practices that lead to large-scale removal of diseased

trees can increase soil erosion and allow INNS to move into these areas. However, without

treatment, large populations of limber pine could be lost until forest regeneration takes place.

The spread of INNS can adversely impact special status plants to a greater degree than general

plants due to the limited size and distribution of these species. INNS such as tamarisk and

Russian olive can occupy sites that might be suitable for Ute ladies’-tresses and persistent

sepal yellowcress. Management that addresses activities that can spread INNS would result in

beneficial impacts to special status plant populations. INNS can be transported onto or within

BLM-administered public lands through livestock fecal material. This transport can be reduced

by requiring that livestock be held off public lands until INNS seeds are expelled (“livestock

flushing”); the requirement for livestock flushing varies by alternative. Treatments for the

control of INNS can result in beneficial and adverse impacts to special status plants. If carefully

performed, treatments that reduce INNS could increase the potential for special status plants to

reestablish in areas previously lost to INNS. However, the use of non-specific herbicides could

affect growth or reproduction of special status plants. In isolated cases, herbicide treatment

could result in direct plant mortality.

Livestock grazing can adversely and beneficially impact special status plants, depending on

grazing intensity, timing of grazing, and range conditions. Livestock grazing can reduce

competition between all plant species occupying the site, but also can cause direct mortality

through trampling, herbivory, and general site degradation (e.g., soil erosion and compaction).

Wild horse grazing could result in similar impacts, but those impacts would be limited to HMAs.

Because wild horse numbers do not vary among the alternatives, potential impacts would be the

same under all alternatives.

Travel management can adversely impact special status plants if motorized travel is allowed in

areas with these species. Vehicles can disturb soil, remove vegetation, and create dust that can

adversely impact plant growth and reproduction, or facilitate the spread of INNS.

Management in special designation areas, such as ACECs, WSAs, and along NHTs, ultimately

protects special status plants by avoiding or prohibiting surface-disturbing activities in these

areas. These designations could increase public use of these areas, which would result in an

increased potential for disturbance and the spread of INNS.

Impacts to special status plant species from air quality, geologic resources, and cave and karst

resources management does not vary by alternative. No lands identified for disposal support

known threatened and endangered plants. Before disposal, identified lands will be evaluated for

the presence of threatened and endangered plants, and if they are present, the BLM will not

dispose of the lands. It is not known whether BLM sensitive plants occur on lands identified for

disposal; however, a survey will be performed before any disposal activity and if threatened

and endangered plants are present, appropriate mitigation will be applied to protect the species

which may include not completing the disposal action. Acquired lands that contain special status

plants will be a beneficial impact as plants will be subject to BLM management that considers

appropriate protection when determining uses of the lands.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 905

4.4.7.3.2. Alternative A

4.4.7.3.2.1. Program Management

Under Alternative A, mitigation will be applied to authorized activities, including travel

management, to protect special status plant populations on a case-by-case basis. Mitigation will

provide some protection for plants and could include moving project locations, closing roads,

or applying a protective buffer to prevent surface-disturbing activities around plant populations.

Mitigation of potential impacts to threatened and endangered plants will be coordinated with the

USFWS as part of the consultation process.

Alternative A establishes acceptable limits for habitat loss, modification, or loss of function for

special status plants on a case-by-case basis. These limits would have a beneficial impacts as

limits would protect against substantial declines in plant populations that could contribute to the

need to list BLM sensitive species under ESA.

Alternative A chemical treatments and range improvement projects in habitats for BLM sensitive

plant species could adversely impact individual plants and plant communities, particularly

where plant survey data are lacking. These actions could cause direct plant mortality, fragment

populations, and/or alter the associated plant community due to chemical spraying or construction

activities. Many of these plant species exist only in communities that contain a specific suite of

plant species. Therefore, there could be indirect impacts from changes to the associated plant

community.

4.4.7.3.2.2. Resources

Soil erosion and fugitive dust from disturbed areas such as roads, mineral and realty developments,

and heavily grazed areas could cover special status plants and reduce photosynthesis. Soil erosion

or compaction can adversely impact special status plants by depriving them of essential nutrients,

organic matter, or water. Moreover, many special status plant species are rare because they

are associated with rare soils or habitat conditions. If these conditions are lost or altered, it

might not be possible for that species to continue to survive in the same location even with the

best efforts at site reclamation. Conservation measures that prevent soil erosion or compaction

diminish the adverse impacts to special status plants. Under Alternative A, cumulative short-term

surface disturbance in the planning area would be expected to be approximately 52,591 acres and

long-term surface disturbance is anticipated to be 12,439 acres during the planning period.

Alternative A manages forest insect and disease outbreaks in limber pine stands on a case-by-case

basis and uses a variety of silviculture techniques (e.g., clear-cuts, selective cutting, and thinning)

to treat forest health conditions. Aggressive treatment methods would likely be the most successful

at reducing the spread of disease and insect infestations in limber pine stands. These same

treatments could adversely impact other special status plants occurring in adjacent landscapes by

increasing soil erosion. Forests could be replanted, including planting of limber pine seedlings, if

timely natural regeneration does not occur following timber sale, forest treatment, or wildfire.

Wildfire, and to some degree, prescribed fires, could result in adverse and beneficial impacts to

special status plants, depending on intensity. Approximately 800 acres per year of treatments

to reduce fuels and manage vegetation would be expected under Alternative A. Of these acres,

approximately 37 percent would be treated with prescribed fire, which poses a greater risk of

unintended adverse impacts than mechanical treatments. In situations where the fire is intense,

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants
906 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

temperatures could be high enough to destroy both the plants and the soil fertility upon which

they depend. However, in low-intensity, lower temperature fires, special status plants might be

only top-killed and could resprout with greater vigor. Low-intensity fuels reduction burning

also could beneficial by preventing the loss of special status plant communities from more

landscape-level wildfires. Vegetative treatments utilizing mechanical methods are much easier

to control than prescribed fire because equipment can be directed at specific areas and away

from special status plants.

The introduction or proliferation of INNS results in very adverse impacts to special status plant

species. Typically, INNS are able to outcompete native plants, whether they are special status or

common, and establish themselves in habitats that might otherwise be suitable for colonization

by special status species. In so doing, they limit the abundance and distribution of special status

plants. Under Alternative A, activities that contribute to the spread of INNS will be managed on a

case-by-case basis. Management actions could include requiring that construction equipment

previously used in areas with INNS be washed before being used in new areas. Alternative A

does not require livestock flushing. Special status plants in areas where INNS are not addressed

will be adversely impacted.

Management actions that establish additional protections for wildlife and special status wildlife

species and their habitats would beneficially impact special status plant communities. Alternative

A prohibits surface-disturbing activities in a 1⁄4-mile buffer around greater sage-grouse leks.

This buffer would protect special status plants on approximately 16,283 acres from activities

that could remove or damage plants. Alternative A closes redundant roads and allows range

improvements (fences and water developments) and new roads in big game crucial winter

range on a case-by-case basis. Where applied, closing roads and not allowing new roads and

range improvements would beneficially impact special status plants by protecting habitat from

construction and vehicle disturbance.

Alternative A management actions that protect cultural, paleontological, or visual resources from

disturbance would beneficially impact special status plant communities that occupy the same site.

Various levels of protection could be applied to a proposed project, depending on the relative

importance of the resources found which would also protect special status plant habitat.

4.4.7.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Exploration (including geophysical operations) and development of locatable and leasable

mineral resources and mineral material disposals would only result in adverse impacts by

directly removing individual plants or entire communities in the short term or removing or

fragmenting potential habitat in the long term. As previously stated, reclamation efforts are not

likely to reestablish the necessary conditions for a rare plant community. Under Alternative

A, activities associated with mineral resource development would be expected to produce

approximately 21,234 acres of short-term disturbance and 9,895 acres of long-term disturbance

on BLM-administered lands during the planning period.

Alternative A adverse impacts to special status plants and their habitats from wind-energy

development, ROWs, and utility corridors would be essentially the same as impacts from

mineral exploration and development activities. All of these uses involve some level of surface

disturbance that could directly remove plants and their habitat, or fragment the remaining habitat

as to limit the abundance and distribution of these species. In addition to these short-term impacts,

such disturbances would add to the production of fugitive dust and its associated long-term

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 907

impacts. Alternative A opens 2,113,512 acres (88 percent of the planning area) to wind-energy

development and 2,188,294 acres (91 percent of the planning area) to ROWs. Alternative A

designates one ROW/utility corridor in the planning area.

Livestock grazing can produce adverse and beneficial impacts to special status plant species.

Range improvement projects in habitats for BLM sensitive species can remove plants or fragment

habitats through construction activities, structure placement, or concentrated trampling. If

livestock are allowed to concentrate, as would occur around watering locations or supplement

sites, plants could be lost by heavy grazing use or trampling. Moreover, trampling and high plant

utilization could result in soil compaction or erosion, making the site unsuitable for potential

habitat in the long term and contributing to the establishment of INNS. Conversely, beneficial

impacts to special status plant species could result if livestock grazing removes competing

vegetation that allows special status plants to thrive. Alternative A allows for livestock grazing on

2,324,934 acres in the planning area.

Recreation management could result in a variety of impacts, both adverse and beneficial, to

special status plants and their habitats. Areas surrounding developed recreation sites or areas that

receive high recreational use such as mountain biking, hiking, and OHV use can adversely impact

special status plant habitats by crushing or killing plants or facilitating INNS movement and

establishment. Unauthorized establishment of trails, whether by hikers or OHV users, also can

result in soil erosion and compaction and the generation of fugitive dust. Recreation areas that

limit motorized travel or constrain mineral and realty actions would result in beneficial impacts to

special status plants. Under Alternative A, most of the intensive recreation areas in the planning

area do not have special management prescriptions that limit surface-disturbing activities.

Much like recreation management, travel management decisions can adversely and beneficially

impact special status plants and their habitats. Roads and trails that bisect special status plant

habitats can cause population declines. Conversely, proper trails and travel management can be

used to designate roads and trails that will avoid special status plant populations. Alternative

A closes 5,923 acres (0.25 percent of the planning area) to motorized travel, which would

beneficially impact special status plants in those areas. In addition, Alternative A designates open

roads and trails on 163,075 acres (7 percent of the planning area), which would reduce the number

of roads and the potential for adverse impacts from vehicle travel. Alternative A limits motorized

travel on approximately 93 percent of the planning area to existing roads and trails; this could

contribute to special status plant loss and habitat fragmentation.

4.4.7.3.2.4. Special Designations

Areas designated for special management under Alternative A, such as ACECs, Congressionally

Designated Trails, WSRs, and WSAs, would beneficially impact special status plant species and

their habitats to the extent that special management provides added protection from disturbance.

Two existing ACECs, Red Canyon and Beaver Rim, include special status plants as part of their

relevance and importance criteria for designation, although other ACECs support special status

plants. Travel management and mineral and realty actions in special designation areas are subject

to greater restrictions than surrounding lands. This would result in long-term beneficial impacts

by protecting existing plant communities and protecting potential future communities in suitable,

undisturbed habitat. Under Alternative A, a total of 169,229 acres are so designated.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants
908 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.4.7.3.3. Alternative B

4.4.7.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B establishes acceptable limits for habitat loss, modification, or loss of function for

special status plants. Limits will be used to preclude substantial changes in habitat that would

contribute to the need to list BLM sensitive species under the ESA. Alternative B closes areas

containing special status plant populations to motorized or mechanized travel and applies an NSO

stipulation to development of mineral leases. In addition, Alternative B excludes areas with

special status plant populations from major ROWs. Closing populations to habitat disturbance

from mineral and realty actions and vehicle travel would result in long-term beneficial impacts to

individual plants or plant populations.

Alternative B prohibits chemical vegetative treatments within 1⁄4 mile of BLM sensitive plant

species except when needed to protect or enhance their habitats. Buffers may be enlarged on a

site-specific and species-specific basis. Alternative B does not allow chemical treatments to alter

plant community composition, such as reducing sagebrush; however, it does allow the treatment

of weeds that are threatening the existence of BLM sensitive plants. These actions would protect

special status plants from the potential adverse impacts of chemical spraying.

Alternative B prohibits range improvement projects within 1⁄2 mile of BLM sensitive plants to

prevent loss or disturbance, unless those projects would benefit the affected plant species. This

buffer would protect plants from soil loss and the impacts from livestock concentration and

trailing associated with water developments and fences.

Before surface-disturbing activities are authorized, Alternative B requires potential habitat

in the project area to be surveyed for BLM sensitive plants. Required surveys would have a

beneficial impact by preventing the loss or fragmentation of habitats on and around the project

site or the permanent placement of facilities within plant communities. Alternative B allows

surface-disturbing activities if protective measures can be implemented to mitigate or eliminate

adverse impacts.

4.4.7.3.3.2. Resources

Impacts to special status plant species from sources such as fugitive dust, soil erosion or

compaction, and excess runoff or sedimentation of water resources are typically products of

surface disturbance. Under Alternative B, cumulative short-term surface disturbance for the

planning period would be expected to be approximately 74,689 acres, or approximately 30 percent

more acres than under Alternative A. Anticipated long-term surface disturbance will be 7,502

acres, or approximately 40 percent fewer acres than Alternative A.

Restricting motorized and mechanized vehicle travel on 5,490 acres of non-WSA lands with

wilderness characteristics in the Little Red Creek Complex would reduce the risk of disturbing

special status plants in that area. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts to

special status plants than Alternative A, which does not specifically manage these lands.

Alternative B treatment of forest insect and disease outbreaks in limber pine stands will focus

in WUI areas and around developed campgrounds to address human safety concerns. Limiting

treatment to these areas would likely result in the additional loss of limber pine stands in the

planning area and facilitate the spread of disease and insect infestations into unaffected stands.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 909

Alternative B vegetative treatments by prescribed burning and mechanical means would increase

substantially over Alternative A. Approximately 2,500 acres of treatments are estimated per year,

more than triple the number of acres under Alternative A. Of these treatment acres, approximately

40 percent of the acres would be treated using prescribed fire. With the increase in acres treated by

prescribed fire under Alternative B, there would be a greater risk that more acres could experience

higher temperature fires that could kill special status plants and affect soil fertility. Assuming that

these treatments were carefully planned and implemented, there could be beneficial impacts to

special status plant communities through reducing the risk of wildfire, which would likely result

in more adverse impacts than beneficial impacts.

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B increases protections for wildlife and special status

wildlife species and their habitats, which would increase the protection of special status plant

communities. Alternative B increases the size of greater sage-grouse lek buffers, which would

protect 77,127 more acres from surface-disturbing activities than Alternative A. Alternative B

closes redundant roads and prohibits range improvements and new roads in big game crucial

winter range (647,231 acres) which will reduce adverse impacts from soil loss or fragmenting

habitats associated with road development. Alternative B adverse impacts from soil erosion,

fugitive dust, and habitat fragmentation would be less than under Alternative A. Alternative B is

more protective, and therefore would result in greater beneficial impacts to special status plants

than Alternative A, which addresses these issues only on a case-by-case basis.

Alternative B places more emphasis on reducing or managing activities that facilitate the spread

of INNS. This includes such techniques such as requiring livestock flushing and stricter controls

on authorized activities to prevent INNS spread from one area to another. Unlike Alternative A,

Alternative B would treat annual brome species throughout the planning area instead of in specific

areas. These additional efforts would likely reduce impacts to special status plant species from

INNS establishment and spread more than management under Alternative A.

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B substantially expands protections for cultural,

paleontological, and visual resources to include entire landscapes or viewsheds around important

resources. These expanded protections from surface disturbance would beneficially impact special

status plant communities that occupy the same sites. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B

increases surface use restrictions for VRM in the planning area because Alternative B designates

more acres to VRM Class II than Alternative A. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial

impacts to special status plants than Alternative A.

4.4.7.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B increases constraints on exploration for, or development of, locatable or leasable

minerals and mineral materials disposals for the purpose of protecting other resource values,

including special status plant communities. Over the planning period, Alternative B would be

expected to produce approximately 16,549 acres of short-term disturbance on BLM-administered

lands and 7,378 acres of long-term disturbance, 22 percent and 25 percent fewer acres

respectively, than Alternative A. Alternative B makes fewer acres available for exploration and

development, thus reducing the potential for surface disturbance and result in greater beneficial

impacts to special status plants and their habitats than Alternative A.

Alternative B closes much of the planning area to wind-energy development, leaving only

41,372 acres open. Alternative B closes 91 percent more acres to wind-energy development than

Alternative A, which would reduce the risk of adverse impacts from plant and/or population

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants
910 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

losses to special status plants. In addition, Alternative B opens fewer acres to ROWs and restricts

major ROWs to designated corridors. Alternative B would provide more protection from surface

disturbance that could adversely impact special status plant species than Alternative A.

Although Alternative B manages 2,312,095 acres as open to livestock grazing, or approximately

the same number of acres as Alternative A, Alternative B requires light (21 to 40 percent)

plant utilization, while Alternative A allows a higher plant utilization level on a case-by-case

basis. Alternative B also prescribes livestock grazing management primarily without the use of

infrastructure or range improvements. Where projects are authorized, range improvements would

be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of BLM sensitive plants to prevent loss or disturbance, unless those

range improvements would benefit the affected plant species. This buffer would protect plants

from the impacts of livestock concentrations and trailing associated with water developments and

fences. Alternative B would reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts from project construction,

livestock trampling, heavy grazing utilization, and the introduction of INNS; this management

would result in greater beneficial impacts to special status plants than Alternative A.

Alternative B expands the recreation program to include numerous new recreation management

areas to facilitate various types of recreation use. Alternative B decreases acreage of the Lander

General ERMA by 536,770 acres to provide more specific management in SRMAs and other

ERMAs. SRMAs and distinct ERMAs will have management prescriptions to enhance recreation

values, including restricting surface uses from mineral and realty actions, which would ultimately

result in beneficial impacts to special status plants in these areas. Plant communities in areas

receiving high recreation use could be adversely impacted from activities that could result in loss

or damage of plants (biking, hiking, etc.) although it is expected that these adverse impacts would

be very localized. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts to special status plants

from increased protections than Alternative A.

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B increases the number of acres closed to motorized

travel to 71,761 acres (3 percent of the planning area). Alternative B designates open roads and

trails on 193,704 acres (8 percent of the planning area). Alternative B would result in greater

beneficial impacts to special status plants by reducing the potential for soil erosion, plant removal,

and habitat fragmentation from motorized vehicles.

4.4.7.3.3.4. Special Designations

In addition to the protections afforded special status plants through special management area

designations under Alternative A, Alternative B designates several new ACECs and expands

the protections for existing special designation areas. Although most of these ACECs contain

habitat for special status plants that contribute to the areas' values, special status plants are not

the primary reason for the designations. Increased protections from plant disturbance and loss

related to travel management and mineral and realty actions would beneficially impact special

status plant populations and habitat in these special management areas. Alternative B includes

1,325,818 more acres of special designation than Alternative A, substantially increasing the

acres of protections for special status plants.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 911

4.4.7.3.4. Alternative C

4.4.7.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C establishes acceptable limits for habitat loss, modification, or loss of function only

as required by the USFWS for threatened and endangered species. Alternative C addresses

cumulative habitat losses for BLM sensitive plant species on a case-by-case basis, which could

lead to reduced habitat availability and population declines. Approximately 160,065 acres of

cumulative short-term surface disturbance would be expected to occur in the planning area during

the planning period, approximately 115 percent more than under Alternative B and 204 percent

increase over Alternative A. Cumulative long-term soil disturbance would be expected to be

60,631 acres, or 400 percent more than Alternative A and 700 percent more than Alternative B.

Alternative C would result in a greater risk of actions that would contribute to listing of BLM

sensitive species under the ESA than alternatives A and B. Alternative C allows motorized

travel in special status plant habitat on existing roads and trails, and allows surface-disturbing

activities unless they would result in loss of the special status plant population. Allowing surface

disturbance from mineral, realty, and vehicle travel activities in these habitats would increase the

potential for overall species declines that could contribute to the need to list the species.

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C allows chemical vegetative treatments in BLM sensitive

plant habitat unless the treatment would cause direct plant mortality. Unlike Alternative B,

Alternative C does not address adverse impacts from treatments to the associated plant community

where these plants occur, which could lead to habitat modifications such that the area could no

longer support the sensitive species.

Alternative C does not require complete inventories for BLM sensitive plants prior to authorizing

activities. If plants are known to occur in the project area, appropriate mitigation will be applied

on a case-by-case basis. Authorizing activities in areas for which there is no plant distribution

information could result in the loss of individual plants or entire plant populations. Alternative C

would result in a greater potential to adversely impact BLM sensitive plants than alternatives

A and B.

4.4.7.3.4.2. Resources

Approximately 160,065 acres of cumulative short-term surface disturbance would be expected

to occur in the planning area under Alternative C, approximately 115 percent more than under

alternatives A and 200 percent increase over Alternative B. Cumulative long-term soil disturbance

would be expected to be 60,631 acres, or 400 percent more than Alternative A and 600 percent

more than Alternative B. Increased surface disturbance can lead to plant loss, soil erosion

or compaction, and/or excessive runoff into riparian-wetland habitats. Adverse impacts to

special status plants from surface disturbance would be greater under Alternative C than under

alternatives A and B.

Like Alternative A, Alternative C does not apply special management to lands with wilderness

characteristics in the Little Red Creek Complex. Therefore the alternative affords no additional

protection for special status plant species from potential disturbance caused by vehicle travel.

Alternative C would result in fewer beneficial impacts to special status plants than Alternative B,

which closes these lands to motorized and mechanized travel.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants
912 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C employes a full range of silviculture methods to address

forest health goals and treat insect and disease outbreaks in limber pine stands. Whereas

Alternative A utilizes treatments on a case-by-case basis, Alternative C aggressively treats

infestations to reduce limber pine loss and prevent the insect and disease spread into unaffected

areas. Alternative C would result in greater beneficial impacts to these special status plant species

than alternatives A and B.

Alternative C annual vegetative treatments by prescribed burning and mechanical methods will

occur on the same number of acres as Alternative A and 1,700 fewer acres than Alternative B. The

proportion of prescribed fire treatment to mechanical treatment is also the same as Alternative A.

There would be less risk of adverse impacts to special status plants from prescribed fire under

Alternative C than under Alternative B; however, there would also be a reduction in the potential

for beneficial impacts that can occur from reducing wildfires.

Alternative C INNS treatment is the same as Alternative A. This approach would be expected to

produce the same level of beneficial impacts to special status plants as under Alternative A.

Alternative C protects greater sage-grouse leks with a 1⁄4-mile buffer, which is the same number

of acres of associated special status plant habitat protected as Alternative A and 17 percent of

the total acres protected under Alternative B. Alternative C does not close redundant roads and

allows range improvements and new roads in big game crucial winter range; this could result in

associated special status plant losses or population fragmentation. Alternative C would result in

more adverse impacts to special status plant species than Alternative A and much more adverse

impacts than Alternative B.

Under Alternative C, the levels of surface use protections for cultural, paleontological, and visual

resources are the same or less than under Alternative A and much less than under Alternative

B. Areas closed to surface-disturbing activities under Alternative B are open under Alternative

C, which would provide less protection to special status plant populations. Alternative C VRM

classifications are also less restrictive of surface-disturbing activities, because Alternative C

designates a larger portion of the planning area as VRM Class IV.

4.4.7.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C eases constraints for the purpose of protecting other resource values, including

special status plant communities, on exploration and development of locatable and leasable

minerals and mineral material disposals. Alternative C does not pursue withdrawals from

locatable mineral exploration and allows existing withdrawals subject to expiration to expire.

Fewer restrictions on minerals exploration and development would increase the likelihood of

more surface disturbance and increase the likelihood of disturbance to special status plants and

their habitats. More acres are open to surface-disturbing activities under Alternative C than under

the other alternatives; therefore, Alternative C would be expected to result in more long-term

surface disturbance in the planning area than alternatives A and B. Actions associated with these

activities on BLM-administered lands would be expected to produce approximately 21,302

acres of short-term disturbance and 9,932 acres of long-term disturbance during the planning

period. Short-term and long-term disturbance acres under Alternative C would be approximately

the same as under Alternative A, and 22 percent and 25 percent more acres, respectively, than

under Alternative B.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 913

Alternative C opens 2,284,235 acres (95 percent of the planning area) to wind-energy

development, which is approximately 8 percent more acres than Alternative A and 93 percent

more acres than Alternative B. Similarly, Alternative C opens more lands to ROWs (94 percent of

the planning area) and manages less land as ROW exclusion or avoidance areas (147,053 and

11,714 acres, respectively) than alternatives A and B. Alternative C designates utility corridors

on 660,908 acres, 27 percent more than Alternative B. Alternative C opens more lands to wind

energy and ROW development than alternatives A and B, and would result in a greater risk of

surface-disturbing activities that could adversely impact special status plants. Alternative C would

result in more adverse impacts to special status plant species than alternatives A and B.

Alternative C allows livestock grazing on approximately the same number of acres as Alternative

A, but allows moderate (41 to 60 percent) utilization while Alternative A establishes utilization

levels on a case-by-case basis. Alternative C also prescribes a more intensive use of infrastructure

or range improvements to manage livestock. The provisions under Alternative C would tend to

increase the likelihood of adverse impacts (e.g., trampling and introduction of INNS) and increase

the likelihood of over-utilization of special status plants. Alternative C allows range improvement

projects in BLM sensitive plant habitats on a case-by-case basis. Project impacts that are not

properly mitigated could result in plant removal and habitat fragmentation. Alternative C impacts

would the same as impacts under Alternative A and less beneficial than impacts under Alternative

B, which utilizes project buffers to protect plants.

Potential adverse impacts to special status plants from recreation management would increase

under Alternative C. Although the number of total acres in specific (not Lander General) SRMAs

or ERMAs is greater (332,055 acres) under Alternative C, restrictions on motorized travel are

essentially the same or less than under alternatives A and B.

Travel management under Alternative C is similar to management under Alternative A.

Alternative C closes 451 fewer acres to motorized travel than Alternative A and 66,289 fewer

acres than Alternative B. Alternative C designates open roads and trails on 50,776 acres (2 percent

of the planning area), which is a decrease of 5 percent from Alternative A and a decrease of 6

percent from Alternative B. Alternative C would result in a greater potential for adverse impacts

to special status plants than alternatives A and C by increasing the potential for plant loss and

habitat fragmentation.

4.4.7.3.4.4. Special Designations

As opposed to the protections afforded special status plant habitats by special management

designations under alternatives A and B, Alternative C does not designate any new ACECs or the

ones identified in the 1987 RMP. Special status plants in ACECs established in 1987 would not

be subject to special management that limits surface-disturbing activities that can cause plant

loss or habitat fragmentation. Travel management and mineral and realty actions are subject to

the basic level of restrictions, except in WSAs. Fewer protections from surface disturbance

under Alternative C would increase the likelihood of adverse impacts to special status plants and

their habitats in these areas.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants
914 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.4.7.3.5. Alternative D

4.4.7.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D establishes acceptable limits for habitat loss, modification, or loss of function

for priority special status plants. Priority plants will be identified based on the amount of

habitat present and how threatened the habitat is from activities occurring in the planning area.

Controlling the amount of habitat loss and fragmentation that can occur from surface-disturbing

activities would have a beneficial long-term impact on these species. Like Alternative A,

Alternative D applies protective mitigation measures on a case-by-case basis to authorized

activities and travel management actions in known special status plant populations to prevent

habitat loss and plant mortality. Adverse impacts would occur from projects that are not

adequately mitigated. Alternative D closes critical habitat for the desert yellowhead to motorized

and mechanized travel, which would result in a greater beneficial impact than Alternative A.

Alternative D has more limits on surface disturbance than Alternative A, but far fewer than

Alternative B. Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts than Alternative C, which

includes less restrictive protections for special status plants, and fewer beneficial impacts than

Alternative B, which establishes habitat loss thresholds for all special status plant species and

closes habitat to mineral, realty, and vehicle travel.

Alternative D allows chemical vegetative treatments in BLM sensitive plant populations so

long as they would benefit the population. In most cases, chemical applications will be limited

to the treatment of weeds or INNS that could crowd out BLM sensitive plant species in the

plant community.

Alternative D requires on a case-by-case basis that surveys for BLM sensitive plant species be

performed prior to authorizing activities. This action is the same as under Alternative A. Where

surveys are required, this management would avoid adverse impacts in surveyed areas; however,

for unsurveyed areas or areas for which there is no other useful information, plants or populations

could be destroyed. Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts to special status plant

species than Alternative C and fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

4.4.7.3.5.2. Resources

Under Alternative D, cumulative short-term soil disturbance during the planning period would

be expected to be approximately 53,894 acres, or slightly more than Alternative A but less

than alternatives B and D. Cumulative long-term soil disturbance would be expected to be

approximately 11,453 acres. Alternative D would result in much greater beneficial impacts than

Alternative C in protecting special status plant habitats, fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative

B, and almost the same beneficial impacts as Alternative A.

Alternative D closes non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics in the Little Red Creek

Complex to motorized travel and opens designated routes to mechanized travel. This would

eliminate disturbance from motorized vehicles and reduce the impacts of mechanized travel

because not all routes will be designated. Beneficial impacts to special status plants under

Alternative D would be almost the same as under Alternative B and greater than under alternatives

A and C.

To maintain forest health that can affect limber pine populations, Alternative D allows a full range

of silviculture practices to treat disease and insect outbreaks on a case-by-case basis. Beneficial

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 915

impacts to limber pine would result where treatments are conducted, but the level of beneficial

impact would depend on how widespread the infestation is within the forest stand and the

effectiveness of the treatment method. Forest stands not treated could experience a catastrophic

loss of limber pine trees. Alternative D impacts would be very similar to impacts under

alternatives A and C and more beneficial than under Alternative B, which does not aggressively

address disease and insect outbreaks.

Approximately 1,000 acres of vegetative treatments will be performed each year by prescribed

burning and mechanical methods under Alternative D. This is 200 more acres per year than

alternatives A and C and 1,500 fewer acres per year than Alternative B. Of these 1,000 acres, 50

percent would be expected to be treated using prescribed fire. Alternative D includes the highest

percentage of prescribed fire treatment acres of all the alternatives, and therefore would result in

the greatest potential for adverse impacts from high-temperature fires. Mechanical treatments

may have beneficial impacts by stimulating growth of special status plants or adverse impacts by

removing plants or damaging habitats. The type and severity of impacts would be dependent on

the plant species and the mechanical method utilized.

Under Alternative D, management of INNS is the same as Alternative B and less aggressive at

treating the spread of INNS than alternatives A and C. Alternative D could require livestock

flushing before livestock are allowed to graze on BLM-administered lands to prevent spreading

ingested INNS seeds. Alternative D also allows for the adjustment of terms for any authorized

activity believed to contribute to the spread of INNS. These additional management actions,

together with ongoing control methods, would be more beneficial to special status plant species

than management under alternatives A and C.

Alternative D protects greater sage-grouse leks from surface-disturbing activities with a 0.6-mile

buffer in the Core Area and 1⁄4-mile buffer outside the Core Area. This combination of buffer

distances represents 102,212 acres of special status plant habitat also protected. Acres protected

under Alternative D are 3.6 percent more than under Alternative A, 0.4 percent more than under

Alternative B, and 3.6 percent more than under Alternative C. Alternative D management of

redundant roads and new road development in big game crucial winter range is the same as

Alternative A, which addresses these issues on a case-by-case basis. Alternative D allows range

improvements in big game crucial winter range when they are part of a grazing management

strategy and project impacts could be mitigated. Alternative D would result in fewer beneficial

impacts to special status plant species than Alternative B and more beneficial impacts than

alternatives A and C.

Surface use protections for cultural, paleontological, and visual resources under Alternative D

are more restrictive than under Alternative A, much more restrictive than under Alternative C,

and less restrictive than under Alternative B. Closing sites to surface-disturbing activities or

implementing protective buffers around the sites would result in greater beneficial impacts to

special status plant habitat. Alternative D designates more acres as VRM Class II than alternatives

A and C, which means these areas would be subject to greater restrictions on surface-disturbing

activities, and therefore providing greater protection for special status plants.

4.4.7.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Compared to alternatives A and C, Alternative D opens fewer acres to mineral exploration and

development activities that could result in special status plant loss or habitat degradation. Closing

lands to surface-disturbing activities reduces the risk of individual plants or entire communities

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants
916 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

being destroyed. Alternative D increases constraints on exploration and development of locatable

and leasable minerals and mineral material disposals for the purpose of protecting other resource

values, including special status plant communities. Actions associated with these activities on

BLM-administered lands during the planning period would be expected to produce approximately

20,302 acres of short-term disturbance, which would be 5 percent less than Alternative A, 23

percent more than Alternative B, and 5 percent less than Alternative C. Long-term disturbance

would be approximately 9,395 acres, which would be 5 percent less than Alternative A, 21

percent more than Alternative B, and 5 percent less than Alternative C. Alternative D applies

Required Design Features to reduce adverse impacts associated with mineral development which

will benefit special status plants.

Management of the Beaver Rim MLP area has special management that would be further

protective of special status plants.

Alternative D opens 224,289 acres (9 percent of the planning area) to wind-energy development,

which is substantially fewer acres than alternatives A and C and more acres than Alternative B.

Similarly, Alternative D opens 22 percent of the planning area to ROWs and manages more acres

as ROW exclusion or avoidance areas (954,322 acres and 1,215,599 acres, respectively) than

alternatives A and C. Alternative D designates utility corridors on 103,646 acres, or a decrease of

approximately 25 percent from Alternative C and an increase of approximately 2 percent over

Alternative B. Alternative D would result in less risk of potential surface disturbance from wind

energy and ROW development that could adversely impact special status plant habitats than

alternatives A and C and a greater risk than Alternative B.

Alternative D allows livestock grazing on 2,317,368 acres (97 percent of the planning area), which

is 7,566 fewer acres than Alternative A, 7,566 fewer acres than Alternative C, and 5,273 more

acres than Alternative B. However, like Alternative C, Alternative D prescribes a more intensive

use of infrastructure and allows for moderate (41 to 60 percent) utilization when combined with

a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy. Alternative D allows range improvement projects in BLM

sensitive plant habitat with buffers of sufficient size to ensure protection from grazing impacts,

however impacts from increased grazing utilization may occur outside the buffered area. Impacts

from these actions would be slightly more beneficial than management under alternatives A and C

and less beneficial than management under Alternative B. Alternative D would result in more

beneficial impacts to special status plants than alternatives A and C, but more adverse impacts

than Alternative B, which requires lighter utilization levels and uses fewer range improvements

to manage livestock.

Alternative D impacts to special status plants from recreation management would be the same

as under Alternative B, except that SRMAs would constitute 13,409 fewer acres and distinct

ERMAs would constitute 576,229 fewer acres under Alternative D. Mineral, realty, and travel

management in these areas will be more constrained than under alternatives A and C, which

would have beneficial impacts on special status plant habitats by reducing surface-disturbing

activities that could result in plant loss and habitat fragmentation. Alternative D would result in

greater beneficial impacts to special status plants than alternatives A and C and fewer adverse

impacts than Alternative B.

Travel management under Alternative D closes 26,357 acres (1 percent of the planning area) to

motorized travel, an increase over alternatives A and C of 20,434 and 20,885 acres, respectively,

and a decrease of 45,404 acres from Alternative B. Alternative D designates open roads and trails

on 154,772 acres (6 percent of the planning area), a decrease of 1 percent from Alternative A

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Plants February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 917

and 2 percent from Alternative B, but an increase of 4 percent over Alternative C. Alternative

D would result in less potential for adverse impacts to special status plants from plant loss and

habitat fragmentation than alternatives A and C and a greater potential than Alternative B. Under

all alternatives, most of the planning area will be open to existing roads and trails and impacts

would be the same as described for Alternative A.

4.4.7.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative D designates 646,543 acres for special management, including ACECs,

Congressionally Designated Trails, WSRs, and WSAs. None of these areas are designated

specifically for the protection of special status plants, but special management that limits surface

disturbance would have beneficial impacts on plants occupying the same area. Alternative D

retains or expands ACEC protections for several of the areas designated under Alternative A.

Constraints on resource uses related to mineral, realty, and travel management authorizations to

protect the resource(s) for which the areas were designated would also protect special status plant

habitats. Alternative D is less restrictive than Alternative B, but more restrictive than Alternative

A. Alternative D would decrease the likelihood of disturbance to special status plant habitat that

could occur under Alternative C, which does not designate any ACECs.

4.4.8. Special Status Species – Fish

The special status fish species addressed in this section include Yellowstone cutthroat trout

(Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri), a BLM sensitive species found in the planning area in the

headwaters of the Wind River, and pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), a federally listed

species found in downstream riverine habitats of the Platte River system. The sturgeon is

considered in this analysis because its habitat could be affected by water depletions in the

Sweetwater River watershed that flows into the Platte River system.

This analysis briefly considers impacts to sauger (Stizostedion canadense) and burbot (Lota lota).

Neither of these species is on the BLM sensitive species list; however, the WGFD considers these

species of special concern and actions on BLM-administered lands could impact these species in a

few localized areas. Actions that alter water quality or quantity in or upstream of the Wind River,

Popo Agie River, and Boysen Reservoir could impact sauger. Actions that alter water quality

or quantity in or upstream of Torrey Creek, the Wind River (particularly near Jakey’s Fork), the

Popo Agie River, or Boysen Reservoir could impact burbot.

4.4.8.1. Summary of Impacts

Direct impacts to special status fish and their habitats result from activities that generate soil

erosion and can increase sediment into waterbodies that support these species. Both the amount of

vegetative cover along stream banks, which helps regulate water temperatures, and vehicles in

the stream channel can directly impact habitat. Alternative B provides the greatest protection

from surface-disturbing activities and would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to special

status fish species. Alternative C provides the least amount of protection and would result in the

greatest potential for adverse impacts to special status fish. Alternative D is similar in many

respects to Alternative A, but Alternative D increases protection in areas important for other

resources, particularly in special designation areas.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Fish
918 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Adverse impacts to pallid sturgeon from actions that could result in potential water depletions

in the Platte River system from oil and gas development and range improvement projects are

expected to be the greatest in Alternative C, followed by alternatives A then D, with Alternative B

having the least amount of potential.

4.4.8.2. Methods and Assumptions

As described in the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish section, management actions or resource

uses that contribute to a decrease in abundance or distribution of special status fish species are

considered adverse. Conversely, management actions or measures that protect these fish species

from disturbance, improve habitat, or lead to increased population or viability are considered

beneficial.

For purposes of this analysis, direct impacts are those that cause damage, loss, or decline in

special status fish populations or loss of habitat or habitat quality. Direct impacts can occur from

recreational use, toxicity from chemical contamination, or sedimentation. Indirect impacts can

include the loss of suitable habitat for future occupation or reproduction. Conversely, an action

that aides in the protection of suitable habitat can be also considered an indirect beneficial impact.

This analysis considers short-term impacts to special status fish species as those that contribute

to a decline in abundance or distribution within 5 years of an activity or management action,

and long-term impacts as those that do not manifest themselves until more than 5 years after

an activity or management action.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Impacts to special status fish species and their habitats will be more important than impacts

to common species.

● Activities that cause substantial disturbance to soils and vegetation can adversely impact water

quality and quantity, which adversely impacts special status fish habitats.

● Surface disturbances accelerate runoff and sediment delivery to stream channels, which alters

streamflows and reduces habitat quality for special status fish.

● Increased sedimentation can adversely impact special status fish species in the planning area;

therefore, this analysis focuses on the degree of surface disturbance anticipated to occur

under each alternative.

● For Platte River System species, the area evaluated includes the portion of the planning area

hydrologically connected and drained by the Sweetwater River, and areas of the Platte River

System downstream of the planning area.

● Water consumption in the Sweetwater watershed could adversely affect surface water quantity

in the larger Platte River System. Water depletion analyses are based on the assumption that

all water used for drilling and completion of wells, and evaporation from reservoirs and water

tanks within the Sweetwater watershed contribute to surface flows of the Platte River or

its tributaries.

● The numbers of projected oil and gas wells within the Sweetwater watershed varies by

alternative and are estimated based on the potential for oil and gas development within the

watershed. Water depletions are calculated using an average of 2 acre-feet per well.

● The addition, timing, and temperature of CBNG produced water will be controlled to prevent

adverse impacts to special status fish and/or aquatic life.

● Each livestock well or spring maintains an average of two stock troughs approximately 10 feet

in diameter (79 square feet) each, for a per-project surface area of 157 square feet.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Fish February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 919

● Livestock pits and reservoirs average approximately 1 acre in surface area. Each livestock

well or spring maintains an average of two stock troughs approximately 10 feet in diameter

(79 square feet) each, for a per-project surface area of 157 square feet.

● In cooperation with the WGFD, the BLM will continue to manage fish species listed on the

BLM Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species List in accordance with BLM Manual

6840. During the planning period, fish species could be added to or removed from the BLM

sensitive species list as additional data are collected and evaluated.

● The USFWS has jurisdiction over the management of threatened and endangered fish species.

Actions that could affect ESA-listed species will be subject to appropriate ESA Section

7 consultation with the USFWS.

● During the planning period, the USFWS could list or delist fish species as threatened

and endangered as additional data are collected and evaluated. Most species delisted or

downgraded from proposed or candidate status will be included on the BLM sensitive species

list.

4.4.8.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Management actions and resource uses that could impact special status fish species and

their habitats include all surface-disturbing activities, grazing by livestock, wild horses, or

native ungulates, chemical or hydrocarbon contamination of water resources, OHV use, fire

management, and activities that deplete water supplies.

Conversely, resource uses prescribed under the alternatives that impact special status fish could,

in turn, be limited by management actions that protect these special status fish species.

Special status fish occur in very limited areas in the planning area, specifically in the Dubois area

and in Beaver Creek, which flows into the Little Wind River on the WRIR. Impacts to special

status fish from management actions are almost the same as non-special status fish species and

are not repeated here. See the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish section for the description of

beneficial and adverse impacts by alternative.

4.4.8.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Although the types of impacts to special status fish species under the alternatives would be

similar, the intensity of impacts would be expected to vary by alternative. Impacts that result in a

decline in abundance or distribution of special status fish species can generally be divided into

two broad categories: (1) impacts associated with a change in water quality and (2) impacts

associated with a change in water quantity. For this analysis, water quality is defined in terms

of sediment loading, water temperature, and water chemistry. Water quantity is assumed to be

average flows under natural conditions.

Development of oil and gas wells can impact surface and groundwater quantity through water use

associated with well drilling and completion, as well as through surface discharge of produced

water from oil and gas wells. Surface discharge of produced water that would substantially

alter temperature and/or turbidity of receiving waters could adversely impact the survival and

reproductive potential of sauger in some systems. Any such alteration in water quality would

be most critical during the May through June spawning and incubation period. The amount

of water used for drilling and completion of wells, including water for dust abatement and

other post-drilling activities, varies by the depth of the well. Water used for well construction

and completion is assumed to reduce the amount of water available for use in the Platte River

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Fish
920 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

downstream of the planning area. The volume of produced water from oil and gas wells impacting

surface and groundwater quantity depends on the amount of water discharged into surface waters,

reinjected, or discharged into impoundments. The contribution of produced water from CBNG

wells specifically, is anticipated to be negligible compared to the total projected water depletions.

Projected development of range improvement projects including water impoundments (reservoirs

and pits), springs, and wells are anticipated to deplete water in the Sweetwater watershed that is

part of the Platte River system. The size of impoundment, spring, and well development is the

same in all alternatives, but the number of developments would vary by alternative. Reservoir

evaporative loss calculations are based on 45 inches annual pan evaporation, average pan

coefficient of .70, and annual average precipitation of 12.1 inches for the Sweetwater watershed.

Potential water depletion for fire and fuels management is not included in depletion calculations

due to the non-predictive nature of unplanned fire.

An integrated management approach will be used to achieve special status fish habitat objectives.

In cooperation with partners, strategies will be developed and implemented to prevent the

introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species, which can severely impact habitat by reducing

food sources for fish and reducing oxygen levels in the water. Movement of water from one

drainage to another will be avoided to prevent the transfer of aquatic invasive species and disease.

Road crossings of streams will be designed and located to minimize impacts to special status fish

movement. Where feasible, existing road crossings identified as restricting fish passage will be

modified to facilitate passage.

Impacts to special status fish species and habitat from air quality, geologic resources, cave and

karst resources, and VRM would not vary by alternative. Wild-horse herds do not overlap areas

supporting special status fish species and therefore would not cause any impacts to these species.

No lands identified for disposal contain special status fish habitat and there would be impacts

under any of the alternatives. Any lands acquired that contain special status fish habitat would be

a beneficial impact.

4.4.8.3.2. Alternative A

Impacts from management actions under Alternative A are almost identical to Alternative A

impacts described for non-special status fish species. Specific to special status fish, activities

that contribute sediment to waterbodies that support Yellowstone cutthroat trout, burbot, and

sauger are authorized on a case-by-case basis. Excess sediment can suffocate fish eggs or impair

production of macroinvertebrates needed by mature fish, therefore special status fish occupying

areas where surface-disturbing activities and associated sedimentation are not authorized would

be beneficially impacted.

It is estimated that approximately 148 conventional oil and gas wells, 107 CBNG wells, 15

reservoirs and pits, 15 springs, and 25 water wells could be potentially developed in the

Sweetwater watershed during the 20 year planning period. These actions would result in

approximately 516 acre-feet of water being depleted under Alternative A during the life of the

plan that would affect downstream pallid sturgeon populations in the Platte River.

Fire retardant will not be aerially applied within 300 feet of waterbodies that support Yellowstone

cutthroat trout, burbot, and sauger. Due to the difficulty in judging distance from the air and

the possibility of chemical drift, there would be a risk of retardant getting into the water. The

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Fish February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 921

potential for adverse impacts would depend on the kinds and amounts of chemical used and the

length of time of exposure.

4.4.8.3.3. Alternative B

Impacts from management actions under Alternative B are almost identical to Alternative B

impacts described for non-special status fish species. Alternative B includes more restrictive

management prescriptions than Alternative A for surface-disturbing activities in the Dubois area,

the location of most of the habitat for special status fish in the planning area. Activities that

contribute sediment to waterbodies containing Yellowstone cutthroat trout, burbot, and sauger

are prohibited.

It is estimated that approximately 37 conventional oil and gas wells, 20 CBNG wells could be

potentially developed in the Sweetwater watershed during the 20 year planning period. These

actions would result in approximately 114 acre-feet of water being depleted under Alternative

B during the life of the plan that would affect downstream pallid sturgeon populations in the

Platte River. New range improvement water projects would not be developed in Alternative B

therefore there would be no associated water depletion concerns. Not authorizing new range

improvements that result in a water depletion in the Sweetwater watershed would beneficially

impact pallid sturgeon downstream of the planning area.

Alternative B does not allow aerial or hand use of fire retardant within 1⁄4 mile of waterbodies that

support Yellowstone cutthroat trout, burbot, and sauger. Alternative B provides a greater distance

of protection than Alternative A and would reduce the risk of chemical drift or leach into the water.

4.4.8.3.4. Alternative C

Impacts from management actions under Alternative C would be almost identical to Alternative

C impacts described for non-special status fish species. Alternative C opens the Dubois area to

mineral and realty development outside the WSAs, and includes the least restrictive prescriptions

in special status fish habitats. Alternative C allows activities that result in soil erosion and

sedimentation of waterbodies supporting Yellowstone cutthroat trout, burbot, and sauger unless

excess sediment would cause fish mortality. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts

to special status fish than alternatives A and B.

It is estimated that approximately 153 conventional oil and gas wells, 111 CBNG wells, 15

reservoirs and pits, 18 springs, and 28 water wells could be potentially developed in the

Sweetwater watershed during the 20 year planning period. These actions would result in

approximately 535 acre-feet of water being depleted under Alternative C during the life of the

plan that would affect downstream pallid sturgeon populations in the Platte River. Alternative

C would result in more adverse impacts to pallid sturgeon downstream of the planning area

than alternatives A and B.

Under Alternative C, fire retardant will not be aerially applied within 300 feet of waterbodies

that support Yellowstone cutthroat trout, burbot, and sauger to prevent adverse impacts to these

special status fish species. This action is the same as Alternative A and provides less protection

than Alternative B.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Fish
922 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.4.8.3.5. Alternative D

Impacts to special status fish from management actions under Alternative D are almost identical

to those impacts described for non-special status fish species identified in the Fish and Wildlife

Resources – Fish section. Alternative D allows actions that result in the removal or depletion

of water in fish-bearing streams, including in the Platte River System, unless the action would

result in the loss of a sustainable fish population. Alternative D avoids activities that contribute

sediment to waterbodies supporting Yellowstone cutthroat trout, burbot, and sauger unless

additional sediment would not harm the species.

It is estimated that approximately 133 conventional oil and gas wells, 95 CBNG wells, 15

reservoirs and pits, 15 springs, and 25 water wells could be potentially developed in the

Sweetwater watershed during the 20 year planning period. These actions would result in

approximately 462 acre-feet of water being depleted under Alternative D during the life of the

plan that would affect downstream pallid sturgeon populations in the Platte River. Alternative D

would result in more adverse impacts to pallid sturgeon downstream of the planning area than

Alternative B and less than alternatives A and C.

Fire retardant will not be aerially applied within 500 feet of waterbodies that support Yellowstone

cutthroat trout, burbot, and sauger, increasing the distance by 200 feet over alternatives A and

C and decreasing the distance by 820 feet from Alternative B.

Overall, Alternative D would result in fewer beneficial impacts to special status fish than

Alternative B and greater beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C.

4.4.9. Special Status Species – Wildlife

Direct impacts to special status wildlife species result from the direct loss of important habitat

or a key habitat feature such as a nest site or lek area, or from animal mortality. Special status

wildlife species can also be directly disturbed by human activities, potentially causing them

to abandon a nest, lek, or home range. Disturbance during sensitive periods (e.g., winter and

breeding) leads to lower recruitment rates and higher mortalities, resulting in adverse impacts to

the species. Direct impacts to special status wildlife species would also include mortality from

such activities as vehicles, fence entanglements, or drowning.

Habitat loss and fragmentation result in adverse impacts to special status wildlife species. Habitat

loss generally results in direct impacts to the individual or population immediately affected.

The impacts of habitat fragmentation, however, operate indirectly through mechanisms such as

population isolation (Saunders et al. 1991); edge effects, such as increased nest predation and

parasitism (Paton 1994; Faaborg et al. 1995); INNS encroachment; and disruption of migration

patterns.

Indirect impacts to special status wildlife species occur by changing habitat characteristics

or quality, which can ultimately result in changes in migration patterns, habitat use, carrying

capacity, and long-term population viability. Indirect impacts to habitats for special status

wildlife species can also occur when specific actions change the habitat in a way that makes it

unsuitable for future habitation. Disturbance impacts can range from short-term displacement

and shifts in activities to long-term abandonment of home range (Miller et al. 1998; Yarmoloy

et al. 1988; Connelly et al. 2000).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 923

For purposes of this analysis, short-term impacts (up to 5 years) to special status wildlife species

are activities to which an individual or species immediately respond, but do not impact species

population viability. Long-term impacts (more than 5 years) are those that cause an individual or

species to permanently abandon an area or that alter species population viability and survival.

An example of beneficial long-term impacts is restoration of habitat structure or health, or

enhancement of forage base to improve populations of special status wildlife species over time.

4.4.9.1. Summary of Impacts

Authorized activities that disturb soil and remove vegetation and result in habitat loss,

modification, or fragmentation impact special status wildlife species. Actions that affect

breeding and birthing activities, cause direct mortality, or cause animals undue stress or energy

expenditures also impact special status wildlife species. Alternative B provides the greatest

protection from surface-disturbing activities and therefore would result in the greatest beneficial

impacts to special status wildlife species and their habitats. Conversely, Alternative C is the least

restrictive of surface-disturbing activities and provides the least amount of protection; therefore,

Alternative C would result in the greatest potential for adverse impacts to special status wildlife

species. Alternative D is similar in many respects to Alternative A, but Alternative D increases

protection in areas important to special status and non-special status wildlife species, particularly

in special designation areas.

4.4.9.2. Methods and Assumptions

Surface-disturbing activities and other actions that remove vegetation, disturb soil, and change

habitat characteristics alter habitat quality and indirectly impact special status wildlife species.

Indirect impacts also result from actions that can alter habitats to make them unsuitable for future

habitation by special status wildlife species.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Impacts to special status wildlife species are based primarily on potential impacts to

BLM-managed habitats.

● Ground-disturbing activities could lead to modification (beneficial or adverse) of habitat

and/or loss or gain of individuals, depending on the amount of area disturbed, the species

affected, and the location of the disturbance.

● Changes in habitat quality could lead to direct impacts and could cumulatively impact species

survival.

● Impacts to special status wildlife species and their habitats are more important than impacts to

common wildlife species.

● Precise quantitative estimates of impacts generally are not possible because the exact locations

of future actions are unknown, population data for special status wildlife species are often

lacking, or habitat types affected by surface-disturbing activities cannot be predicted.

● Actions that impact one species result in similar impacts to other species using the same

habitats or areas.

● Measures to protect one species generally will result in long-term beneficial impacts to other

species within that habitat.

● The more acreage of habitat protected, the greater the beneficial impact to the targeted species.

● Prohibiting surface disturbance or occupancy is more restrictive and provides more protection

for special status wildlife species than avoiding surface disturbance or occupancy.

● Disturbance during sensitive periods adversely impacts special status wildlife species.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
924 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Short- and long-term surface disturbance are assumed to occur in vegetation types in

proportion to the availability of these vegetation types in the planning area. Impact acreage

for vegetation types are not absolute, but serve as a relative comparison among alternatives.

● Removal of sagebrush habitat will result in long-term adverse impacts to sagebrush-obligate

species.

● Management of sagebrush habitats follows the BLM National Sage-Grouse Habitat

Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004a). Using these guidelines, greater sage-grouse serve as an

indicator species for other sagebrush-obligate species.

● “Prohibiting” non-beneficial ground disturbance and disruptive activities in greater

sage-grouse habitats provides a higher level of protection for greater sage-grouse than

“avoiding” these activities.

● Fencing can be an obstacle and/or potential hazard to special status wildlife species.

● Changing or altering livestock grazing patterns could beneficially or adversely impact special

status wildlife species habitat and its use.

● Mitigation success depends on specific protective measures and past results, and assumes that

mitigation would be properly implemented.

● Public interest in special status species will likely increase due to concerns about loss of

habitat from development activities that supports these species.

● No direct impacts to habitats for special status wildlife species downstream along the Platte

River from activities in the planning area are expected. Changes in water quantity in the

planning area will be the primary indirect impact of resource management actions on Platte

River species.

● In cooperation with the WGFD, the BLM will continue to manage species on the BLM

Wyoming State Director’s Sensitive Species List in accordance with BLM Manual 6840.

During the planning period, species could be added or removed from the list as more data are

collected and evaluated.

● During the planning period, the USFWS could list or delist special status wildlife species as

threatened and endangered as more data are collected and evaluated. Most species delisted

or downgraded from proposed or candidate status will be included on the BLM sensitive

species list.

● The greater sage-grouse Core Area is equivalent to the Wyoming Sage-Grouse Implementation

Team’s (SGIT) greater sage-grouse core population areas established by the Wyoming

Governor.

● The current trends and issues affecting greater sage-grouse populations and habitat described

in the WAFWA 2004 publication "Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and

Sagebrush Habitats" describe the primary resource concerns in the planning area.

● The impoundment of water in oil and gas activities or as part of range improvement projects

could increase breeding habitat for mosquitoes that carry WNV that is fatal to greater

sage-grouse.

4.4.9.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Potential impacts to special status wildlife species would be similar under all alternatives,

however, the intensity of impacts would vary by alternative. Impacts to special status wildlife

species from program management; other resources, including vegetation, fire, wild horses, and

cultural; and resource uses such as minerals, ROWs, recreation and travel management, and

livestock grazing; and special designations, including ACECs, historic and scenic trails, and

WSAs are described under individual alternatives. The Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife

section in Chapter 3 describes the various WGFD statutory wildlife categories into which special

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 925

status wildlife species in the planning area fit, including trophy game, predatory animals, game

birds, migratory game birds, and nongame species, including raptors, neotropical migrants,

mammals, and amphibians. Because impacts occur in habitats that can be occupied by animals

belonging to multiple statutory categories, impacts are addressed either by specific species, by

the habitat type they occupy, or collectively, where appropriate. Special status wildlife species

typically occur in grassland/shrubland, forest/woodland, or riparian-wetland habitats.

4.4.9.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Potential impacts to special status wildlife species under each alternative would be similar to the

impacts described in the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife section of this chapter. Adverse

impacts to special status species and their habitats are usually of more concern than impacts to

general wildlife because of the limited nature of their numbers, habitat, or unique threats. Special

status wildlife species mortality, habitat loss, fragmentation, or modification, and/or population

declines can contribute to BLM sensitive species becoming listed under the ESA, and ESA-listed

species becoming more imperiled.

Special status wildlife species habitats would be lost, degraded, fragmented, reclaimed, protected,

and enhanced by management actions and allowable uses under all alternatives, although the

intensity of impacts would vary by alternative. As the acreage of surface disturbance and human

activity level increase, the quality and quantity of special status wildlife species habitats would

likely be reduced. Areas with numerous access roads and surface disturbances could result in

loss of available habitat and avoidance of the area, disrupt use patterns, and alter or eliminate

corridors that link crucial habitats. Because the precise location of surface disturbance under

the alternatives is not known and because special status wildlife species can utilize more than

one vegetation type, the degree of impact from surface disturbance is anticipated to be directly

related to the amount of surface disturbance. Long-term surface disturbance could continue, even

following reclamation. Although reclamation restores some habitats and reduces the acreage of

long-term surface disturbance, the locations of permanent facilities (e.g., roads and well pads)

adjacent to reclaimed areas can reduce the utility of the reclaimed habitat. For example, the

higher the density of permanent facilities in an area, the more a habitat is fragmented, and the

more adverse are anticipated impacts to special status wildlife species.

Both direct and indirect beneficial impacts to special status wildlife species would result from

implementing restrictions that conserve different habitat types or from implementing seasonal

protections from surface-disturbing and disruptive activities. Refer to Appendix T (p. 1641) for

the anticipated acres of short-term and long-term surface disturbance from BLM actions over

the planning period.

Resources

Under all alternatives, impacts to special status wildlife species from air quality, geologic

resources, water resources, and visual resources management would not vary by alternative.

Management that limits adverse impacts to these resources would result in a secondary beneficial

impact to special status wildlife species. Management that changes water quantity in the

Sweetwater River watershed may directly impact special status wildlife species occupying

aquatic and/or riparian-wetland habitats in Nebraska. See the resource-specific sections of this

chapter for further description of impacts from management actions by alternative. There are

no alternative-specific management actions for cave and karst resources. To the extent that

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
926 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

management is directed at protecting these resources, once identified, there would be a secondary

beneficial impact to Townsend’s big-eared bats and their habitat.

Soil

Under all alternatives, management actions that limit soil disturbance would have a beneficial

impact on special status wildlife species. Actions that disturb soil and remove vegetation

would adversely impact special status wildlife species unless the disturbance was conducted in

conjunction with vegetative treatments designed to enhance habitat for a specific species. Surface

disturbance is avoided on steep slopes, with the degree of slope varying by alternative. Avoiding

disturbance on slopes would result in a secondary beneficial impact to special status wildlife by

limiting the amount of habitat available for surface-disturbing activities. Disturbances in special

status wildlife species habitats considered limited in the planning area (i.e., Townsend’s big eared

bat, peregrine falcon, mountain plover, pygmy rabbit, and Canada lynx) would result in more

adverse impacts than disturbances in more abundant habitats. Depending on the intensity of

the disturbance, time of year of disturbance, and the health condition of special status wildlife

species using the habitats, reductions in habitat quality could result in short-term and long-term

impacts. The longer reclamation takes to restore disturbed areas to usable habitat, the greater the

adverse impact to special status wildlife species.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Lands with wilderness characteristics support and have unfragmented habitats for

grassland/shrubland, forest/woodland, and riparian-wetland obligate special status birds,

mammals, and amphibians. These lands are located in the Dubois area and do not support suitable

habitat for black-footed ferret, white-tailed prairie dog, pygmy rabbit, or swift fox; therefore,

management actions for the identified lands would not impact those species.

Fire and Fuels

Fire can result in both direct and indirect and beneficial and adverse impacts to special status

wildlife species and their habitats. Generally, the impacts to habitat are much greater than the

impacts to resident animals. Short-term adverse impacts to resident species from fire include

displacement, disruption of reproductive activities, and occasionally mortality. In general, fire

adversely impacts special status wildlife species in forest/woodland habitats for a longer time

than species in grassland/shrubland habitats because of the time it takes the site to return to

predisturbance conditions. Loss of mature timber stands would result in long-term adverse

impacts to Canada lynx, grizzly bear, northern goshawk, and long-eared myotis. Fire can impact

birds when it occurs during the nesting season, killing chicks and destroying nests. Raptors

such as ferruginous hawks, northern goshawk, and peregrine falcon can benefit from fire due to

increased populations of small mammals and birds in response to vegetative changes after fire. In

the short term, fire can reduce cover and habitat available for prey species.

Using fire as a habitat management tool in grassland/shrubland habitats could adversely impact

special status wildlife species if desirable shrub and perennial grass stands were converted

to annual grasses. Sagebrush requires a long time to achieve the size and height needed

for nesting and security cover, particularly in low-precipitation areas. Greater sage-grouse,

sagebrush-obligate songbirds, and pygmy rabbits generally would be the species most affected,

either beneficially or adversely, by habitat modifications in grassland/shrubland habitats.

Removing native vegetation with fire could open sites to INNS, which has little benefit to wildlife

either as forage or cover. Fire that removes most of the sagebrush from the ecosystem could

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 927

remove suitable habitat for greater sage-grouse and sagebrush-obligate neotropical migrants in

the long term, but impacts would depend on the severity, size, and location of the fire. Fire

also could beneficially impact sagebrush-obligate species because it can improve the age class

diversity of sagebrush plants and increase the density and species composition of the herbaceous

plant understory. Fuels treatment would help minimize the size of wildfires and adverse impacts

to special status wildlife species, particularly in greater sage-grouse habitats.

Vegetation

Forest management actions to meet forest health objectives could result in habitat loss and

fragmentation, displacement of animals, disturbance from noise, and increased vehicle traffic, as

described in the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife section. Forest management activities

impact grizzly bear, gray wolf, Canada lynx, northern goshawk, and long-eared myotis the most

because these species require a timber overstory for seasonal habitats. Timber management

activities could remove forest cover needed for foraging and denning habitat of snowshoe hare,

the main prey of Canada lynx, which could affect Canada lynx. Snowshoe hares can 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. Human activities such as timber harvest

and thinning projects can be compatible with Canada lynx if they mimic natural disturbances, such

as wildfire, and if these activities provide a mix of Canada lynx habitat components (Ruggiero et

al. 1994, Ruediger et al. 2000). Northern goshawks typically occupy large tracts of old-growth

coniferous forests with dense canopy cover, although they can occupy a variety of forest habitat

types (Reynolds et al. 2008, Squires and Ruggiero 1996). Timber management actions that thin or

alter suitable habitat could adversely impact the availability of nesting habitat, although some

studies have shown that northern goshawks select territories in areas previously logged or thinned

(Clough 2000, Reynolds et al. 2008). The Dubois and Green Mountain areas contain timber

stands having size and structural characteristics for suitable nesting habitat. In addition, these

areas provide other habitat components for northern goshawks to establish territories (Reynolds et

al. 1992, 2006, and Kennedy 2003). Timber harvest activities could result in an increase in roads

and access into Canada lynx, grizzly bear, and northern goshawk habitats that could result in

additional habitat loss or disturbance conflicts. Mitigation measures associated with roads could

reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to these special status species (Reynolds et al. 2008).

Management actions that promote a diverse mix of grasslands and shrublands would also promote

a natural landscape and healthy special status wildlife species habitats. Reducing impacts to

vegetation resources from surface disturbance would reduce adverse impacts to special status

wildlife species habitats. Maintenance of contiguous habitat blocks, and the corridors between

them, would have a beneficial impact on species that have large home ranges and depend on large

areas of habitat to carry out their life history requirements (i.e., grizzly bear, gray wolf, Canada

lynx, greater sage-grouse, raptors, and neotropical migrants). Corridors between habitat blocks

are important for seasonal movements and to minimize conflicts with human activities such

as hiking, fishing, and camping. Successful reclamation of surface disturbance is necessary

to establish connectivity within previously fragmented habitats and to achieve and maintain

ecosystem function.

Management focuses on maintaining sagebrush and understory diversity in greater sage-grouse

and other sagebrush-obligate species' habitats unless vegetative treatments are needed to achieve

habitat objectives. Similar to greater sage-grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, sage thrasher,

loggerhead shrike, and pygmy rabbit depend on sagebrush habitats. Except for pygmy rabbit,

these species could occupy other shrubland habitats, particularly during the non-breeding season.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
928 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Because greater sage-grouse is one of the largest and most visible special status bird species, they

are typically used as an indicator species for other sagebrush-obligate birds and small mammals;

therefore, management actions that protect greater sage-grouse habitat generally would have

beneficial impacts on all sagebrush-obligate species.

Management of riparian-wetland areas to meet PFC and the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands would improve habitat conditions for a multitude of special status wildlife species,

including trumpeter swan, bald eagle, white-faced ibis, long-billed curlew, yellow-billed

cuckoo, greater sage-grouse, and amphibians (northern leopard frog, great basin spadefoot toad,

boreal toad, and spotted frog). Actions that improve riparian-wetland PFC would improve

habitats for special status wildlife species, especially via increases in the quantity and quality

of riparian-wetland vegetation and insects. Management actions that maintain seeps, springs,

wet meadows, and riparian-wetland vegetation in a functional and diverse condition would have

beneficial impacts on all special status wildlife species, and greater sage-grouse in particular.

Under all alternatives, riparian-wetland areas are protected from surface-disturbing activities,

which would also have a beneficial impact on special status amphibians and their habitats.

Invasive Species and Pest Management

Impacts from the establishment and spread of INNS and the various treatment methods would be

the same as identified in the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife section. Annual and perennial

INNS occur primarily in grassland/shrubland and riparian-wetland habitats on public lands. INNS

would impact special status wildlife species such as greater sage-grouse, sage thrasher, Brewer’s

sparrow, white-faced ibis, and amphibians the most because those species spend most of their

time in these habitats. Cheatgrass is the most widespread INNS in the planning area and has the

greatest potential to adversely impact greater sage-grouse habitats. Broad-spectrum insecticides

are discouraged in greater sage-grouse brood-rearing areas to reduce the adverse impacts to

non-targeted insects important for young grouse from such treatments. All alternatives identify

and prioritize areas for treatment and manage activities that contribute to the establishment of

weed infestations, ultimately benefitting special status wildlife species habitats. Impacts to special

status wildlife from the presence of INNS or control methods would not vary by alternative.

Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Species

In general, impacts to special status wildlife from surface disturbance would parallel the impacts

to general wildlife. Actions that constrain surface-disturbing activities to protect fish, special

status fish, and special status plants also would have a beneficial impact on habitats for special

status wildlife. Amphibians and neotropical migrants are the species most likely to benefit from

management actions that protect fish and special status fish, whereas actions that protect special

status plants would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife in all statutory categories.

All alternatives, except Alternative C, require surfacing-disturbing activities and facilities to

have the smallest footprint possible to minimize the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation.

Implementing, where appropriate, conservation measures, terms and conditions, and appropriate

BMPs and reasonable and prudent measures in existing state programmatic biological opinions

for the bald eagle, Canada lynx, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, and grizzly bear would minimize

and mitigate adverse impacts from resource uses and activities. Actions that could affect federally

listed wildlife species require consultation and coordination with the USFWS. Due to the number

of special status wildlife species that have habitats in the Dubois area, lands in that area are a

priority for management actions that beneficially impact these species.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 929

A TLS is used to protect breeding and nesting special status wildlife, including raptors, mountain

plover, and greater sage-grouse from surface-disturbing and disruptive activities. Under all

alternatives, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities are prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of mountain

plover breeding and nesting habitat from April 10 to July 10 unless surveys indicate the absence

of birds. A TLS is applied within 1 mile of an active bald eagle nest during the period February

1 to August 15 to protect nesting eagles. Occupied greater sage-grouse leks are protected from

surfacing-disturbing activities year-round, and the distance of protection from leks varies by

alternative. In addition, identified winter concentration areas for greater sage-grouse are protected

from surface-disturbing and disruptive activities from December 1 to March 14. Dates could be

modified if data indicates a change is necessary to better protect nesting greater sage-grouse.

Seasonal nesting limitations for raptors, mountain plover, and greater sage-grouse would have

beneficial impacts on other special status birds nesting in the same area. All stipulations are

subject to exception, modification, or waiver if conditions warrant and the BLM subsequently

grants an exception, modification, or waiver.

Approximately 1,678,035 acres (70 percent of the planning area) are identified as greater

sage-grouse Core Area; therefore, management actions that conserve, protect, and maintain

habitat for greater sage-grouse are a priority in this area. Numerous management actions common

to all alternatives from the BLM National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy would

result in beneficial impacts to this species (BLM 2004a). Actions that maintain sagebrush and

understory diversity in seasonal habitats, manage riparian-wetland habitats in a functional and

diverse condition, and reduce infrastructure that can cause greater sage-grouse mortality (i.e.,

fences) or give predators an advantage (i.e., perching structures) would result in beneficial

impacts to special status wildlife. Impacts to special status wildlife would be minimized through

appropriate placement of facilities and projects and maintaining connectivity between large

blocks of undisturbed habitat. Conservation of sagebrush habitat would not only result in

beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse, but also other sagebrush-obligate species such as

the sage thrasher and sage sparrow.

Most of the planning area has been block-cleared by the USFWS for black-footed ferrets based on

negative findings in previous surveys. Surface-disturbing activities could affect the suitability

of large white-tailed prairie dog complexes to be considered as potential black-footed ferret

reintroduction sites in block-cleared areas. Outside block-cleared areas, surveys for black-footed

ferrets are performed prior to authorizing surface-disturbing activities. Surface-disturbing

activities could result in beneficial impacts to white-tailed prairie dogs because they often move

into disturbed sites that have suitable grass communities nearby.

Management actions that protect general wildlife species during sensitive periods would also have

beneficial impacts on special status wildlife. All alternatives apply a TLS seasonally to protect

other nesting raptors and in big game crucial winter range. Applying these stipulations also would

protect other special status wildlife using these habitats at the same time.

Wild Horses

Wild horses compete directly for water, forage, and habitat and wild horse management would

result in direct adverse impacts to the availability of forage and cover in grassland/shrubland and

riparian-wetland habitats for special status wildlife and their prey. Grazing could reduce upland

and riparian-wetland vegetative cover and structure, and forage quality and quantity, thereby

reducing the suitability of these habitats for special status wildlife. Impacts to white-tailed prairie

dogs, mountain plovers, and black-footed ferrets would be minor because habitats for these species

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
930 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

contain little forage for wild horses; therefore, horses are not expected to spend much time in these

habitats. A total of 537,825 acres of the greater sage-grouse Core Area overlaps wild horse herd

areas, which constitutes 30 percent of the Core Area on public land in the planning area. Wild

horse actions would not impact grizzly bear, Canada lynx, trumpeter swan, and peregrine falcon

because habitats for these special status wildlife species do not overlap with wild horse HMAs.

Cultural and Paleontological

Management actions for cultural and paleontological resources would indirectly protect special

status wildlife habitat by restricting surface-disturbing activities, thus minimizing vegetation loss.

The amount of habitat protected is commensurate with the number of acres protected for these

resources. Authorized excavation of sites and cultural and paleontological inventories would

cause localized, short-term disruption at the excavation sites. However, these actions are subject

to the same seasonal and surface use restrictions required for resource uses. Adverse impacts

from cultural and paleontological surface disturbance would be expected in relatively small areas

and would not vary among the alternatives.

Resource Uses

Minerals

Impacts to special status wildlife from mineral exploration, development, and transport would

be the same as impacts described in the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife section. There

would be no beneficial impacts to special status wildlife associated with locatable mineral,

leasable mineral, and mineral materials disposal activities. Primary adverse impacts would be

the short-term and long-term loss and fragmentation of habitat, animal displacement and/or

mortality, and the disruption of corridors that link seasonal ranges. Under all alternatives, 3,432

acres are withdrawn from locatable mineral entry in the East Fork area. These acres were

withdrawn pre-FLPMA, therefore the withdrawal is not subject to expiration. This withdrawal

would benefit special status wildlife using the lands. It is anticipated that approximately 183 acres

of long-term disturbance would occur each year from locatable mineral activities and another

183 acres of long-term disturbance would occur from mineral materials disposal activities under

all alternatives. Geothermal and oil and gas development utilize the same extraction methods;

therefore, impacts from the development of these resources would be similar. The number of

acres with long-term impacts from disturbance would vary by alternative for oil and gas leasing

activities; no additional disturbance would be expected from geothermal leasing activities under

any of the alternatives because of the lack of identified commercially viable resources in the

planning area.

Most concentrated oil and gas development is expected to occur in areas with high to moderate

development potential in the Lysite and Beaver Creek areas and in the area south of Jeffrey City.

Development activities would impact greater sage-grouse, mountain plover, white-tailed prairie

dog, ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, pygmy rabbit, dwarf shrew, and neotropical migrants. The

Lysite and Beaver Creek areas are outside the greater sage-grouse Core Area, but the area south

of Jeffrey City is in the Core Area due to the high density of greater sage-grouse leks. The rest

of the planning area has low, very low, or no potential for oil and gas development, including

CBNG. It is expected that oil and gas development in areas outside those with high and moderate

potential would consist of wildcat operations and small isolated fields, and that there would

be no large-scale development in those areas.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 931

Adverse impacts from habitat loss, fragmentation, and modification can lead to population

declines for specific species. Areas with intensive development, either from one or a combination

of minerals extraction methods, could make surrounding undisturbed habitats unusable due

to noise, human activity, roads, etc. Management actions that minimize surface-disturbing

and disruptive activities in special status wildlife habitats would result in the fewest adverse

impacts. Mineral extraction methods would determine the degree of adverse impacts to special

status wildlife and associated habitat. Impacts would include displacement and disturbance of

animals, removal of vegetation, and loss of habitat. The level of impacts would depend on the

size of the exploration and/or development area and the importance of the altered habitat to the

species. Because of the length of time it takes sagebrush to establish on sites that have been

disturbed, all acres disturbed and reclaimed would be considered long-term disturbance impacts

to sagebrush-obligate special status wildlife.

Mineral development and associated ROWs are expected to be the greatest single contributor to

the disturbance of special status wildlife habitat in the planning area. Beyond initial exploration

(including geophysical activities), land clearing, and aboveground facility construction, continued

human disturbance to special status wildlife could occur from activities such as equipment

maintenance and site operations, which are especially disruptive during sensitive times (wintering,

breeding, and nesting). The management of disruptive activities during O&M activities varies

by alternative.

Mosquitoes can breed in condensate pits used for drilling activities and evaporation ponds

built for produced water. Mosquitoes carrying the WNV can transmit the disease to greater

sage-grouse, which results in the death of the bird.

Geophysical activities to identify oil and gas reserves can result in short-term disturbance and

habitat modification impacts to special status wildlife. See the Fish and Wildlife Resources

– Wildlife section for a description of impacts associated with seismic operations. Impacts

from seismic operations would not vary by alternative; however, the number of acres open to

geophysical activities does vary by alternative.

The development of phosphate leases would require stripping of the overburden to access the

phosphate deposit, which would result in long-term, and likely permanent, loss of habitat

for special status wildlife. Approximately 60,374 acres of federal mineral estate have been

identified as having phosphate potential in the planning area, with deposits found predominantly

along the Lander Slope, in the Sheep and Schoettlin Mountain areas, and near the Sweetwater

River. These areas support many special status wildlife species, including sagebrush- and

riparian-wetland-obligate birds, mammals, and amphibians. All alternatives prohibit phosphate

leasing within 500 feet of riparian-wetland habitats, which would result in beneficial impacts to

species utilizing these habitats. There are currently no phosphate leases in the planning area.

Lands

Land acquisitions, pursuit of easements, and tenure adjustments would improve management

of the public lands overall; impacts to special status wildlife would be project specific and

would vary depending on the type of tenure action. Lands containing important special status

wildlife habitats are considered when making land tenure adjustments in the planning area. The

acquisition of lands would have a direct beneficial impact to all species of wildlife associated with

that habitat because lands under BLM control will not be available for subdivision and are subject

to management decisions that consider impacts to all wildlife. Land exchange and acquisition

could provide opportunities to make a more manageable land pattern that could be administered

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
932 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

to benefit special status wildlife. Disposing of lands could result in the long-term loss of habitat,

depending on how the new owner uses the lands. Lands with habitats for ESA-listed species are

not available for disposal.

Renewable Energy

It is expected that wind-energy development would not occur universally across the planning area

and would occur only in areas identified as having high potential for wind-energy development.

Potential wind-energy development would include site development, utility corridors, and access

routes and would result in direct adverse impacts to special status wildlife and their habitats.

Due to the large footprints they create, wind-energy developments can cause habitat loss and

fragmentation, wildlife avoidance of the area, and increased human activity which would result in

long-term adverse impacts. Turbines and associated powerlines may adversely impact special

status birds and bats because they can be struck by the turbine blades or suffer internal injuries

and mortality from rapid air pressure changes. There would be no direct beneficial impacts to

special status wildlife from wind-energy development.

ROWs and Corridors

Impacts to special status wildlife from ROWs and corridors would be the same as described in the

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife section. Concentration of aboveground and belowground

utilities in corridors would result in barriers, either physical or psychological, to special status

wildlife movement. Increased traffic along these routes could increase the risk of vehicle-related

wildlife mortality. Facilities that produce continual noise can affect the breeding vocalizations

of greater sage-grouse. Continuous noise from industrial facilities, such as compressor stations,

close to active greater sage-grouse leks would interfere with male greater sage-grouse strutting

behavior which could reduce the reproductive success of greater sage-grouse using these leks.

Livestock Grazing Management

All alternatives allow livestock grazing across most of the planning area, which would result

in direct competition with special status wildlife for forage and habitat. The development of

livestock grazing systems would provide the opportunity to improve or maintain range conditions

that support special status wildlife. Management of BLM-administered lands to meet Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix J (p. 1537)) would result in actions that could

balance the impacts of grazing while sustaining special status wildlife and their habitat. Failure to

implement proper livestock grazing management could degrade habitats if removal of vegetation

is excessive, soil disturbance and compaction, and the transport of INNS. Livestock allowed to

concentrate in riparian-wetland areas could adversely affect habitat for special status wildlife by

removing hiding cover and degrading water quality and quantity. Livestock grazing managed

for light utilization and authorized outside sensitive periods would reduce or eliminate potential

conflicts and be the most beneficial for special status wildlife and their habitats. High utilization

levels in riparian-wetland and upland habitats would reduce available forage and cover for special

status wildlife and could cause a decline in plant diversity, which could result in a decline in

the number of species the area can support.

Although there is little evidence linking grazing practices to population levels of greater

sage-grouse (Connelly and Braun 1997), the impacts of grazing on greater sage-grouse habitat

have been studied. Several authors have noted that grazing by livestock could reduce the

suitability of breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing habitat, adversely affecting greater sage-grouse

populations (Dobkin 1995, Connelly and Braun 1997, Beck and Mitchell 2000).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 933

Placement of new water sources or salt or mineral supplements in greater sage-grouse breeding

and nesting habitat could degrade habitat quality by increasing forage utilization and reducing

cover needed to conceal nests and chicks. Livestock grazing in fall or early spring would likely

remove the residual herbaceous understory and reduce its vertical structure, which would reduce

the visual security for upland nesting special status birds such as greater sage-grouse, sage

thrasher, and Brewer’s sparrow. Inadequate security cover could lead to increased predation and

subsequent lower nesting success. Under all alternatives, forage utilization levels are established

in greater sage-grouse nesting habitat to ensure the availability of adequate nesting cover.

Livestock range improvement projects, such as fences and water developments designed to alter

grazing distribution and expand use into areas under-utilized by livestock, will both adversely and

beneficially impact special status wildlife. Fences could benefit wildlife habitat by controlling

or eliminating livestock grazing in areas important to wildlife, increasing vegetative cover and

forage availability. Areas that receive less livestock use are often favored by special status

wildlife due to ample forage and cover, reduced competition for resources, and limited human

disturbance associated with grazing management activities. Range improvements modify natural

livestock movement patterns and could lead to increased plant harvest in breeding, nesting, and

winter habitats essential for special status wildlife. Projects can also alter grazing distribution

to increase nesting cover in areas that previously received high utilization levels. Livestock

fences create travel barriers to grizzly bear and gray wolf and impalement hazards to birds.

Management actions that consider placement and visibility of fences in relation to special status

wildlife seasonal habitats and movement patterns would beneficially impact the species. Under

all alternatives, fence markers would be required on new wire fences constructed in greater

sage-grouse habitat to reduce the potential for injury or death from collision with fence wires.

Water developments maintained throughout the year can be beneficial to special status wildlife

in areas where other water sources are limited. Well-designed reservoirs and associated

riparian-wetland vegetation could create nesting, feeding, and brood-rearing habitat for migratory

birds. Water troughs provide water in very arid areas, but also can pose a drowning hazard to

birds trying to access water. Under all alternatives, escape ramps will be required in all stock

water troughs and tanks to reduce the potential for drowning by birds and small mammals.

Associated windmills and/or power poles provide hunting perches for raptors, which could result

in predation of special status wildlife such as greater sage-grouse and mountain plover. Similar to

pits and ponds used in mineral development activities, shallow or stagnant livestock water can

produce mosquitoes that carry the WNV. Mosquitoes carrying the WNV can transmit the disease

to greater sage-grouse, and if exposed, the bird would die. Water developments increase livestock

use in areas that could have been used predominantly by wildlife. Wildlife tend to depend on

areas where there is little livestock use because they do not have to compete for forage and

cover resources. Increasing livestock use in these areas could lead to increased plant utilization,

resulting in decreased forage and cover and dispersal of special status wildlife. Livestock use

around water sources could also alter vegetative diversity, potentially reducing habitat quality

for many species of special status wildlife.

Recreation and Travel

Impacts to special status wildlife from recreation and travel management actions would be the

same as described in the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife section. Recreation activities

during sensitive periods (breeding, nesting, birthing, wintering, and hibernating) could disrupt

special status wildlife behavior and cause the expenditure of energy reserves, resulting in adverse

impacts to the individual or the local population. OHV use can cause short-term displacement

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
934 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and long-term habitat loss and fragmentation, including expanding human presence into formerly

remote areas. Impacts would increase if frequent OHV use occurs during critical periods for

special status wildlife, potentially leading to decreased health, death to individuals, or overall

population declines. Areas closed to motorized vehicle use would beneficially impact special

status wildlife by eliminating habitat loss caused by roads and reducing disturbance or mortality

from vehicles. Special status wildlife use in and around developed recreation sites is typically

limited because wildlife generally avoid areas with human activity/presence. Lands managed

for primitive recreation experiences protect the natural environment, and therefore also would

beneficially impact special status wildlife.

Special Designations

Special designation areas that have restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource

uses that adversely impact special status wildlife would result in long-term beneficial impacts

to the species. ACEC designations would result in beneficial impacts to special status wildlife

species by restricting surface-disturbing activities and certain resource uses, such as mineral

development, ROW development, and motorized vehicle use. Each ACEC has its own set of

prescriptions for how lands are managed. The only prescription that automatically comes with the

ACEC designation is the requirement that a Plan of Operations be completed before locatable

mineral exploration or development can occur, regardless of acreage. This requirement allows

the BLM an opportunity to identify and address potential impacts to wildlife with the mining

proponent; however, the 1872 General Mining Law gives preference to the mining proponent over

the protection of wildlife habitat. Special status wildlife habitat adjacent to NHTs is also protected

from development; however, the distance from the NHTs that the protection would extend

varies among the alternatives. The Special Designations section of this chapter provides further

analysis for each special designation by alternative. Eight WSAs, encompassing 55,338 acres, are

managed for naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and primitive and unconfined

recreation under BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas. Impacts to special

status wildlife would not vary by alternative, except for road and trail closure areas, which are

discussed in the Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management section of this chapter. Habitats in

WSAs are protected from surface-disturbing activities in the long term, and short-term disruptive

activities are minimized. Approximately 21 miles of NWSRS-eligible waterway segments along

Baldwin Creek and the Sweetwater River provide habitat for special status wildlife occupying

riparian-wetland, grassland/shrubland, and forest/woodland plant communities. These special

designations provide multiple beneficial impacts by restricting activities and resource uses that

degrade habitat and disturb special status species wildlife.

4.4.9.3.2. Alternative A

4.4.9.3.2.1. Program Management

Alternative A requires surveys on a case-by-case basis to determine the presence or absence

of BLM sensitive species prior to authorizing actions on public land. If species are present,

mitigation measures are required to protect the species and limit adverse impacts to their habitats.

The requirement for surveys is based on the availability of suitable habitat in the project area.

Surveys for nongame neotropical migrants, mammals, and amphibians are generally not required

before authorizing surface-disturbing activities, whereas surveys for special status raptors, greater

sage-grouse, white-tailed prairie dog, and pygmy rabbit are generally required. In all cases,

surveys are required for threatened and endangered species in suitable habitat. Information

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 935

collected during surveys will help in determining appropriate mitigation measures to protect

species during sensitive periods (winter, mating, nesting, hibernation), protect limited habitats,

and contribute to species occurrence knowledge in the planning area for future authorizations.

Alternative A establishes limits of acceptable habitat loss on a case‐by‐case basis to reduce

declines in special status wildlife populations. These management actions would beneficially

impact special status wildlife.

Alternative A applies a TLS to prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 3⁄4 mile of active

peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, burrowing owl, and ferruginous hawk nests from February 1

to July 31. This date range would adequately protect nesting and fledging ferruginous hawks and

peregrine falcons because they typically finish these activities between those dates. Ferruginous

hawks tend to be more sensitive to disturbance, and a 3⁄4-mile buffer might not be adequate to

prevent nesting birds from abandoning eggs or chicks. Northern goshawks and burrowing owls

usually initiate nests later in spring; therefore, their chicks generally do not fledge until after July

31. Alternative A would result in long-term adverse impacts to northern goshawks and burrowing

owls because the date range would not be long enough to encompass chick fledging. Protective

buffers would help minimize, but would not completely prevent, impacts to raptors because most

species are mobile beyond these buffers. Impacts from habitat degradation and loss would be

commensurate with the amount of surface disturbance. Areas expected to experience a large

amount of surface disturbance are associated with intensive oil and gas development and uranium

mining in the Lysite, Gas Hills, Beaver Creek, and south of Jeffrey City areas.

Alternative A includes a number of management actions directed specifically at protecting greater

sage-grouse and their habitat. Surface‐disturbing and disruptive activities are prohibited on or

within 1⁄4 mile of occupied greater sage‐grouse leks. Greater sage-grouse have a high fidelity to

breeding areas; therefore, protecting leks and surrounding nesting habitat would ensure long-term

availability of these sites for greater sage-grouse and for other sagebrush-obligate neotropical

migrants. Disruptive activities occurring on or near leks can cause greater sage-grouse to leave

the lek and can result in lower reproduction rates and subsequent population declines for that

particular area. Alternative A will avoid disruptive human or noise activities within 1⁄4 mile of the

perimeter of occupied leks between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 to May 15 on a case-by-case

basis. Disruptive activities include actions such as non-emergency project maintenance, road

blading, project staking, and resource inventories. Alternative A avoids surface‐disturbing and

disruptive activities in greater sage‐grouse nesting habitat within 2 miles of occupied leks from

February 1 to July 31. This action would result in short-term beneficial impacts to nesting birds,

but would not protect habitats in the long term because Alternative A allows surface-disturbing

activities in this same area outside the nesting season. This action would provide long-term

protection of 16,283 acres of lek habitat and short-term protection of 794,452 acres of nesting

habitat on public surface. Alternative A does not establish disturbance densities or cumulative

surface disturbance thresholds in greater sage‐grouse breeding, nesting, and brood‐rearing habitat,

which could adversely impact the ability to maintain existing populations.

On a case-by-case basis, Alternative A requires equipment or techniques that reduce the

noise decibel output to be installed on facilities such as compressor stations to minimize the

impacts of noise to breeding and nesting greater sage-grouse. Noise levels that interfere with

greater sage-grouse vocalizations can adversely impact the reproductive success of males. This

management action, if applied, would beneficially impact greater sage-grouse using leks close to

noise sources. High-profile structures that can be used by raptors as hunting perches are prohibited

within greater sage-grouse nesting habitats on a case-by-case basis. Greater sage-grouse are

susceptible to predation during breeding and nesting periods and structures that give raptors a

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
936 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

hunting advantage could contribute to a population decline. In addition to greater sage-grouse,

overhead structures can increase raptor predation on white-tailed prairie dogs, mountain plovers,

and pygmy rabbits. Alternative A allows, on a case-by-case basis, overhead powerlines in greater

sage-grouse, white-tailed prairie dog, mountain plover, and pygmy rabbit habitats. To reduce

predation opportunities, Alternative A requires on a case-by-case basis that anti-perching devices

be installed on overhead powerlines and that low voltage powerlines be buried. Reducing noise

and predation opportunities would beneficially impact special status wildlife.

Alternative A avoids surface-disturbing activities in occupied pygmy rabbit and white-tailed

prairie dog colonies when possible. Pygmy rabbits typically spend most of their time within

approximately 100 feet of their burrows; therefore, projects should be able to avoid these habitats

in most cases. Surface disturbance in white-tailed prairie dog colonies can adversely and

beneficially impact the species and black-footed ferrets can also live in these colonies. Blading

and trenching activities could cause animal displacement from the area, loss of burrow habitat,

or animal death. These actions also would disturb soil, which could facilitate additional burrow

development because white-tailed prairie dogs will utilize the softer disturbed ground to dig

new burrows and pathways.

To protect special status bats, Alternative A avoids surface-disturbing and disruptive activities

at or near known bat maternity roosts and hibernation areas on a case-by-case basis. These

habitats are typically found in old mining shafts and adits in the South Pass and Bridger Mountain

Range areas, in dilapidated buildings, and in trees throughout the planning area. To birth their

young, bats require warm, safe places close to good insect foraging areas and they hibernate

in areas where they are less likely to be disturbed by light, noise, and predators. Disturbance

during the hibernation period can cause bats to use up fat reserves needed to survive the winter

months. Disturbance of maternity roosts, hibernacula, or adjacent foraging habitats can result in

localized bat population declines.

As travel corridors for special status wildlife are identified, Alternative A manages surface

disturbance and the placement of facilities to minimize adverse impacts to movement on a

case-by-case basis. Movement corridors are necessary for special status wildlife to access

seasonal habitats and to maintain genetic diversity within the population. Telemetry data collected

indicates species such as Canada lynx, grizzly bear, and greater sage-grouse tend to utilize the

same areas each year to move between seasonal habitats. Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) have

been established to identify important transition ranges with Canada lynx habitats occurring on

adjacent USFS lands. Preserving these corridors would result in long-term beneficial impacts to

special status wildlife.

Many special status wildlife species occupy lands in the Dubois area, although some species

might not have been documented on BLM lands. Grizzly bear, gray wolf, Canada lynx, bald

eagle, trumpeter swan, northern goshawk, white-faced ibis, spotted bat, and BLM sensitive

amphibians occupy the area, and much of their individual habitats overlap. Alternative A

closes the Whiskey Mountain and East Fork ACECs and the Whiskey Mountain and Dubois

Badlands WSAs to most surface-disturbing activities, which would beneficially impact special

status wildlife. The remainder of the Dubois area is open to surface-disturbing and disruptive

activities and managed with standard stipulations, such as seasonal raptor nesting protections and

riparian-wetland area avoidance. Standard stipulations would not protect most special status

wildlife habitats from long-term loss or fragmentation resulting from authorized resource uses

and could lead to localized population declines.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 937

4.4.9.3.2.2. Resources

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative A does not specifically manage lands with wilderness characteristics to protect those

characteristics. Most of the identified lands with wilderness characteristics are in the Whiskey

Mountain ACEC and are managed in accordance with ACEC prescriptions. Lands outside the

ACEC are not subject to special management.

Fire and Fuels

Under Alternative A, it is anticipated that 300 acres per year would be treated through the

use of prescribed fire and 500 acres would be treated using mechanical treatment methods to

address fire and fuels concerns. Prescribed fire and mechanical treatments would beneficially

and adversely impact special status wildlife. Fire that removes all timber and shrubs in habitats

would result in long-term adverse impacts due to the length of time it takes for new timber or

shrubs to grow. Fire that thins or creates mosaics in forest/woodland and grassland/shrubland

habitats would likely beneficially impact special status wildlife that require a greater degree of

plant diversity. Mechanical treatments can be performed with a greater degree of control than

fire treatments; therefore, adverse impacts from mechanical treatments will likely be minor.

Targeting mechanical treatments for habitat improvement would beneficially impact special

status wildlife using the area.

Alternative A allows full suppression strategies, including surface-disturbing activities, for

wildland fires on a case-by-case basis. Full fire suppression would beneficially impact special

status wildlife by limiting the short-term and long-term loss of available habitat; however,

suppression that includes the use of heavy equipment that removes topsoil can result in long-term

loss of habitat. Vehicles and equipment that disturb soil can allow INNS to establish or spread

on disturbed sites, which would reduce overall habitat quality. There would be fewer adverse

impacts from surface disturbance if post-fire vegetative seeding was conducted and reclamation

was successful. Fire suppression activities (e.g., vehicles, heavy equipment, pedestrians, and

aircraft) could displace species sensitive to disturbance, such as roosting or nesting birds. Fire

suppression activities could harm populations of amphibians if toxic fire-fighting chemicals are

applied in riparian-wetland areas.

Vegetation

Alternative A manages forests and woodlands in response to forest health, demand for forest

products, and habitat needs for special status wildlife using a variety of silviculture practices.

Alternative A limits clear-cuts to 25 or fewer acres and prohibits them within 100 feet of

riparian-wetland areas. Timber harvests that remove all the trees within a cut block can result

in long-term loss of habitat for northern goshawk and Canada lynx, and short-term disturbance

impacts from noise, displacement, and increased human presence. Prohibiting disturbance in

riparian-wetland areas would result in a long-term beneficial impact to special status amphibians.

Alternative A manages forest insect and disease outbreaks on a case-by-case basis and

forest/woodland areas prescribes planting in areas of product sales, vegetative treatments, or fire

if natural regeneration does not occur. Timber stands lost from insects and disease would result in

long-term adverse impacts to special status wildlife that depend on forest habitats. Treatment

activities would result in short-term adverse impacts to special status wildlife; however, treatments

also would result in long-term beneficial impacts by improving the overall quality of the habitat.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
938 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative A manages grassland and shrubland habitats to achieve the vegetation attributes

described in the NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions. This action could beneficially impact special

status wildlife because site descriptions include a mixture of grasses, forbs, and shrubs that should

provide adequate forage and security and thermal cover needed by most species. Ecological Site

Descriptions typically prescribe a higher percentage of grasses in the plant community, which

could adversely impact shrub-obligate species if shrub density declines. On a case-by-case basis,

Alternative A allows soil and vegetative treatments used to increase rangeland forage production.

Treatments focused on increasing herbaceous production and decreasing the amount of sagebrush

in plant communities would adversely impact special status wildlife if treatments do not maintain

a balance of herbaceous and woody species.

Alternative A prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of water and riparian-wetland

areas, which would conserve special status wildlife habitat and provide protection from impacts

that can degrade these areas. Surface disturbance that generates additional sediment or changes

the hydrologic function of the area can impact habitat quality and quantity for special status

wildlife in the long term. The BLM will manage riparian-wetland areas to meet PFC and will

utilize various site-specific management actions, such as upland water developments and

riparian-wetland area pasture or exclusion fences, to move areas toward PFC where needed.

Management actions such as developing water in upland habitats and building exclusion fences to

eliminate concentrated grazing use in riparian-wetland areas could adversely and beneficially

impact special status wildlife. Reducing grazing in riparian-wetland areas would increase grazing

utilization in upland habitats used by greater sage-grouse; this could reduce standing herbaceous

cover needed to conceal nests and chicks. Fences also could lead to altered movement patterns

and could be a hazard to some species of birds flying to and from seasonal or foraging habitats.

Prohibiting surface disturbance near riparian-wetland areas and utilizing tools to reduce grazing

use would be expected to ultimately result in a riparian-wetland system with increased vegetation

and structural diversity, which would lead to an increase in the abundance and diversity of special

status wildlife the area can support.

Wild Horses

Impacts from wild horse management under Alternative A would be the same as described under

Impacts Common to All Alternatives above. Alternative A does not specifically establish travel

loops to facilitate wild horse viewing, and requires that fencing decisions for HMAs consider wild

horse movement and genetic diversity. Limiting or modifying fences in HMAs would beneficially

impact special status wildlife movement in the same area.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Alternative A protects cultural and paleontological resources in the Warm Springs Canyon

Flume area, around sacred sites and TCPs, and in the Beaver Rim and Bison Basin areas

from surface-disturbing activities. Management actions that prevent surface disturbance and

subsequent habitat loss in these areas may result in beneficial impacts to special status wildlife

species using these areas.

4.4.9.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Minerals

Alternative A manages most (99 percent) of the planning area as open to locatable mineral

exploration and development; mining activities would adversely impact special status wildlife

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 939

and their habitats. There is little opportunity under the 1872 General Mining Law to prevent or

mitigate adverse impacts to special status wildlife other than ESA-listed species. Mining activities

would result in the loss, fragmentation, and modification of predominantly grassland/shrubland

and forest/woodland habitats, loss of nests and young, death of less mobile animals, and wildlife

displacement and disturbance from equipment noise, vehicles, and human presence. The amount

of habitat lost, fragmented, or altered would depend on the scale of the mining activity. Areas

open to locatable mineral entry include 1,720,190 acres of the greater sage-grouse Core Area,

which could result in short- and long-term adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse breeding,

nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitat by removing and fragmenting habitats and increasing

human presence during sensitive periods. Development of large uranium deposits south of Jeffrey

City would result in the loss of habitat for greater sage-grouse from surface disturbance and

fragmentation.

Alternative A withdraws a total of 23,114 acres of federal mineral estate, and most withdrawals

are subject to expiration after 20 years. Alternative A pursues existing withdrawals for extension

at the end of the withdrawal period. Withdrawn acres are scattered throughout the planning area;

however, most acres are associated with the Whiskey Mountain and East Fork ACECs. Lands

within these ACECs provide habitat for a number of special status wildlife species, in addition

to bighorn sheep and elk, and protecting this habitat from locatable mineral exploration and

development would result in long-term beneficial impacts to the maintenance of populations

of bald eagle, northern goshawk, Canada lynx, grizzly bear, gray wolf, and BLM-sensitive

neotropical migrants. A total of 3,893 withdrawn acres are in the greater sage-grouse Core Area

and 4,472 withdrawn acres are in LAUs. Withdrawn acres would result in long-term beneficial

impacts to special status wildlife by preventing habitat loss and fragmentation from mining

activities.

Alternative A opens 2,280,345 surface acres to geothermal leasing and opens 2,380,925 surface

acres to oil and gas leasing (95 percent and 99 percent of the planning area, respectively). It

is anticipated that approximately 770 acres would be disturbed each year through oil and gas

development activities, with 400 acres being disturbed for the long term. The disturbance of

these acres would adversely impact special status wildlife through the alteration of habitat. It is

expected that most of the short-term acre disturbance would likely result in long-term impacts

to sagebrush-obligate special status wildlife due to the length of time it takes to reestablish

sagebrush on disturbed areas.

Alternative A impacts to special status wildlife from mineral lease exploration and development

would be similar to those described for locatable mineral entry, except mineral leases are subject

to surface use and timing stipulations for greater sage-grouse, raptors, and mountain plover.

Timing limitations would protect these breeding and nesting species in the short term, but surface

disturbance outside the stipulated period would result in habitat loss and fragmentation in these

same habitats. Surface use stipulations prohibit surface disturbance within 1⁄4 mile of occupied

greater sage-grouse leks (16,283 acres), which would provide long-term protection on these acres.

Most development is expected to occur in areas with high and moderate potential for oil and

gas resources that overlap habitat for greater sage-grouse, mountain plover, ferruginous hawk,

burrowing owl, grassland/shrubland neotropical migrants, white-tailed prairie dog, pygmy rabbit,

and swift fox. Surface disturbance would likely result in beneficial impacts to white-tailed prairie

dogs and mountain plover utilizing adjacent habitats because these species typically inhabit

newly disturbed areas. Large-scale development would result in greater levels of habitat loss

and fragmentation because there would be more roads, pipelines, well sites, and powerlines

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
940 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

than would be associated with wildcat wells or isolated small fields. Developments could

adversely impact linkages between habitat patches needed to ensure connectivity of populations.

Large-scale habitat loss and fragmentation, combined with the increased level of human presence,

vehicles, and infrastructure, could cause special status wildlife to avoid the area; this would be a

long-term adverse impact to special status wildlife.

Alternative A opens almost all the greater sage-grouse Core Area in the planning area to mineral

leasing. Of the total acres in the Core Area (1,724,082 acres), Alternative A closes just 25,136

acres to mineral leasing. There is a moderate potential area for oil and gas south of Jeffrey City

which, if developed, would result in the loss of habitat for greater sage-grouse, both from surface

disturbance and from a high degree of fragmentation, which would likely cause population

declines in this part of the Core Area.

Seasonal protections from surface-disturbing and disruptive activities generally do not apply to

the O&M activities for oil and gas wells and facilities unless applied as a COA on the permit

or unless substantial surface disturbance would occur. Activities such as hydraulic fracturing

(“fracking”), powerline reconstruction, range improvement repair, and road maintenance would

not be subject to timing limitations to protect special status wildlife unless the action is specifically

identified in the project analysis and added to the authorization. These types of activities can

cause wildlife stress and disturbance to wildlife during the sensitive nesting period due to the

length of time it takes to complete the work, the level of noise generated, and the presence of

people and equipment. O&M activities would likely result in short-term adverse impacts related

to animal displacement and long-term adverse impacts if the level of activity results in avoidance

of the area or the loss of nests or young.

Alternative A open 22,754 acres and closes 4,268 acres to geothermal and oil and gas leasing in

LAUs in the Dubois area. Large development projects are not anticipated in the Dubois area;

however, there could be exploration drilling. Exploratory drilling operations would result in

long-term habitat loss and area avoidance by Canada lynx due to the length of time it would take

to return sites to suitable habitat, and the secretive nature of the species.

Alternative A opens the entire planning area to geophysical activities, subject to COAs that could

protect special status wildlife. Areas closed to mineral leasing would likely not be authorized

for geophysical activities.

Alternative A opens a total of 2,240,104 acres (94 percent of the planning area) to phosphate

leasing. It is expected that phosphate leasing and extraction could occur on approximately 42,291

acres identified as having potential for phosphate. Much of the area with phosphate potential

overlaps the greater sage-grouse Core Area, and development of phosphate leases would result in

long-term, if not permanent, habitat loss for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate

special status species. Of the total acres closed to phosphate leasing, 102,397 acres are in the Core

Area, which is 6 percent of the total acres of the Core Area in the planning area. Leasing is open

on 22,038 public surface acres of LAUs that also overlap habitat for grizzly bear, gray wolf, bald

eagle, and neotropical migrants, but these lands are not identified as having phosphate potential.

Therefore, no impacts to these species would be expected under Alternative A.

Alternative A opens 2,165,196 surface acres (90 percent of the planning area) to mineral materials

disposals. Of these acres, 1,587,389 overlap the greater sage-grouse Core Area. Mineral materials

disposals typically involve the removal of all surface material; therefore, there would be adverse

impacts to special status wildlife using disposal sites, including white-tailed prairie dog and

mountain plover (which tend to prefer disturbed sites), from the loss of habitat. Alternative A

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 941

closes 229,014 acres to mineral materials disposal, which would result in long-term beneficial

impacts to special status wildlife.

Lands

Land acquisition or disposal actions are conducted with the goal that the exchange, acquisition, or

disposal will increase public benefits, including special status wildlife resources. Any acquisition

of non-federal surface land that includes high value habitat can result in beneficial impacts by

allowing for mitigation or restrictions on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities. Any disposal

of BLM-administered land that contains high value habitat is typically avoided. Disposal lands

could experience increased human presence, which could increase the disturbance to wildlife

utilizing the area. All land tenure actions are analyzed site specifically, using a public process,

to determine what is in the public interest. Consolidating land ownership through land tenure

adjustments increases the manageability of lands and results in contiguous blocks of habitat, which

would result in beneficial impacts to special status wildlife. Alternative A identifies 8,573 acres

for disposal by sale, exchange, or other methods, and makes available an additional 1,475 acres

with restrictions on future use. Restrictions would likely protect special status wildlife because

they would ensure lands disposed of are used in a manner compatible with surrounding lands.

Renewable Energy

Alternative A opens 2,113,512 acres (88 percent of the planning area) to wind-energy

development, consistent with the Wind Energy Programmatic EIS (BLM 2005a). Erecting wind

turbines in special status wildlife habitat would create collision hazards for birds and can cause

pulmonary bleeding in bats from air pressure changes near the rotating turbine blades. These

impacts would result in the death of the affected animal and could cause localized population

declines. Wind-energy facilities could result in permanent habitat loss for special status wildlife

because facilities would likely be permanent. The level of impact to local populations of special

status wildlife would depend on where the development occurs and which special status wildlife

habitats are affected. Alternative A manages wind-energy development in greater sage-grouse

habitats on a case-by-case basis. Of the acres open to wind-energy development, 1,584,707

acres overlap the greater sage-grouse Core Area. Development in the Core Area would reduce

the suitability of the developed area for greater sage-grouse because this species typically avoids

areas with tall structures. Alternative A avoids or excludes wind-energy development on 280,697

acres, which would result in beneficial impacts to special status wildlife using these areas by

keeping habitats intact.

ROWs and Corridors

Alternative A opens 2,188,294 acres (91 percent of the planning area) to ROWs, including roads,

pipelines, transmission lines, and communications facilities. ROWs would result in habitat

loss and fragmentation for special status wildlife and introduce hazards from electrocution,

predation, and collision. Surface disturbance from ROW development would likely result in

beneficial impacts to mountain plover and white-tailed prairie dog because they tend to move into

recently disturbed sites. Open acres include 1,592,835 acres of the greater sage-grouse Core Area;

greater sage-grouse likely would avoid ROWs that include aboveground structures, reducing the

amount of usable habitat. Aboveground structures can have beneficial impacts to ferruginous

hawks because most raptors utilize the structures for nesting platforms and as hunting perches.

Alternative A manages 205,916 acres as ROW exclusion areas, of which 131,247 acres primarily

along the NHTs are in the Core Area. ROW exclusion areas are closed to major ROW projects

but are available for minor ROWs on a case-by-case basis. Large projects result in more surface

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
942 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

disturbance; therefore, excluding major ROWs would reduce the amount of habitat such projects

would adversely impact. Alternative A identifies 66,099 acres as ROW avoidance areas, which

would offer less protection from habitat loss and fragmentation than exclusion areas; historically,

large ROWs in avoidance areas have seldom been authorized. Alternative A does not designate

utility corridors and co-locates major ROWs with existing utilities on a case-by-case basis to

minimize surface disturbance. Co-locating utility lines would result in long-term beneficial

impacts to special status wildlife by eliminating or reducing surface disturbance in intact habitats.

Livestock Grazing Management

Alternative A authorizes livestock grazing on 2,324,934 acres (97 percent of the planning area) of

public land suitable for grazing. Livestock grazing is not authorized on 69,276 (3 percent of the

planning area), including allotments previously closed (which does not vary by alternative), and

lands deemed unsuitable for grazing (e.g., rock outcrops and roads). Most of the closed lands

are in the Dubois area and provide habitat for grizzly bear, gray wolf, northern goshawk, bald

eagle, and sagebrush neotropical migrants. Closed lands have beneficial impacts on these species

by reducing conflicts between special status predators and livestock. Lands open to grazing

could reduce habitat quality for some special status wildlife, depending on grazing management,

the grazing season of use, plant utilization levels, and the kinds and amounts of infrastructure

built to facilitate grazing.

Alternative A adjusts livestock grazing use dates on open allotments in the Dubois area to

minimize conflicts with grizzly bears on a case-by-case basis. Livestock are most vulnerable to

predation from grizzly bears as bears emerge from hibernation dens between March and May

and need to replenish depleted energy reserves. Grizzly bears typically remain in the area until

mid to late June, at which time they often move to higher-elevation forested habitats. Encounters

with livestock can result in the death or relocation of offending grizzly bears; adjusting livestock

grazing dates to later in the season would reduce the potential for such conflicts.

Alternative A establishes livestock forage utilization levels on a case-by-case basis; special status

wildlife would benefit where utilization levels consider habitat needs. In areas where utilization

levels are excessive, high plant utilization would adversely impact the success of ground-nesting

special status birds by reducing plant density and the standing height needed to effectively

conceal nests from predators. Alternative A prohibits salt or mineral supplements within 1⁄4

mile of riparian-wetland habitats to prevent livestock congregation and plant over-utilization,

beneficially impacting special status wildlife species that depend on riparian-wetland areas for

water, forage, and hiding cover.

Alternative A allows range improvements in special status wildlife habitats on a case-by-case

basis. It is expected that actions under Alternative A would disturb approximately 43 acres during

the construction and/or development of approximately two reservoirs, three wells, two spring

developments, and 15 miles of fence each year during the planning period. Concentrated livestock

use at water developments typically removes vegetation that can facilitate INNS establishment

and degrade the overall quality of habitat. New water developments constructed in greater

sage-grouse nesting habitat would likely reduce hiding cover by facilitating increased harvest of

standing grasses that shield nesting greater sage-grouse and young chicks, and reduce nesting

cover needed for the following spring nesting period. New fences would add to the 2,285 miles of

existing fence on public lands in the planning area, increasing the overall fragmentation of habitats

and increasing the potential for collisions by special status birds. Alternative A modifies or

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 943

removes existing fences on a case-by-case basis to facilitate wildlife movement or reduce hazards.

Modifying or removing fences would beneficially impact special status birds and large mammals.

Recreation and Travel Management

Adverse impacts to special status wildlife can occur from concentrated recreation along NHTs

and the CDNST and in areas surrounding developed recreation sites and campgrounds in the

South Pass and Green Mountain areas. Special status wildlife tend to avoid areas with people,

pets, and noise, and recreation activities during breeding, nesting, and birthing periods can

cause animals to abandon their nests and/or young. Alternative A withdraws lands around

developed recreation sites and campgrounds (724 acres) from locatable mineral exploration and

development. This action would provide long-term habitat protection of these acres, but would

not result in substantial beneficial impacts to special status wildlife because these species do not

extensively use these areas. Alternative A does not include special management prescriptions for

intensive recreation areas (Johnny Behind the Rocks, The Bus @ Baldwin Creek Area, the Sinks

Canyon climbing area, the Dubois Mill Site area, the Sweetwater River WSA, Sweetwater Rocks,

and the Coal Mine Draw area), but manages them as a planning area-wide ERMA. Management

is directed at protecting resources, which would provide some beneficial impact to special status

wildlife habitat by addressing adverse impacts to habitat from mechanized or motorized vehicle

use, camping, rock climbing, and hiking.

Alternative A limits motorized travel to existing roads and trails on 2,226,504 acres (93 percent

of the planning area). The alternative allows OHV use off existing roads and trails to perform

necessary tasks such as retrieving big game kills, repairing range improvements, and performing

mineral activities where surface disturbance would total less than 5 acres. Adverse impacts

to special status wildlife habitats can occur from vehicles driving off existing roads, killing

vegetation and increasing animal displacement and stress. Off-road (i.e., cross-country) use

would increase habitat fragmentation and road proliferation because other OHV users tend to

follow the same tracks. Alternative A limits motorized travel on approximately 163,075 acres (7

percent of the planning area) to designated roads and trails, primarily in the Whiskey Mountain,

Lander Slope, Red Canyon, and Green Mountain ACECs. Designating roads and trails would

keep vehicle travel out of sensitive areas, reduce road densities, and limit habitat loss for Canada

lynx, grizzly bear, gray wolf, greater sage-grouse, and neotropical migrants. Alternative A closes

5,923 acres (0.2 percent of the planning area) to motorized travel, which would beneficially

impact special status wildlife habitats by preventing loss and fragmentation and eliminating

vehicle-caused stress to wildlife. A total of 111,002 acres, predominantly on Green Mountain and

in the Lander Slope, Red Canyon, and Whiskey Mountain ACECs, are subject to seasonal travel

closures during winter and early spring. In addition, Alternative A closes 14,729 acres in the Red

Canyon area to over-snow travel, including motorized and nonmotorized use. Seasonal closures

would protect special status wildlife from disturbance and the unnecessary expenditure of energy

reserves during sensitive winter, breeding, and birthing/nesting periods.

4.4.9.3.2.4. Special Designations

The Special Designations section of this chapter describes Alternative A management actions

and resulting impacts for ACECs, Congressionally Designated Trails, and WSAs. Alternative

A designates nine ACECs totaling 119,622 acres (5 percent of the planning area), which would

protect special status wildlife and their associated habitat from many surface-disturbing activities

and related disruptive activities. ACEC management includes (1) closing lands or applying

NSO stipulations for mineral leasing, (2) requiring a Plan of Operations for locatable mineral

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
944 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

development and maintaining locatable mineral withdrawals in the Whiskey Mountain and East

Fork ACECs, (3) prohibiting or limiting motorized vehicle use, and (4) avoiding major ROWs.

Lands in the Whiskey Mountain, East Fork, and Dubois Badlands ACECs provide habitat for

Canada lynx, grizzly bear, gray wolf, bald eagle, northern goshawk, burrowing owl, dwarf shrew,

spotted bat, neotropical migrants, and amphibians. Greater sage-grouse have been observed in the

East Fork ACEC; however, there are no known leks in the ACEC and the area is not in the greater

sage-grouse Core Area. The Lander Slope, Red Canyon, Beaver Rim, Green Mountain, South

Pass Historic Mining Area, and NHTs ACECs provide habitat for most special status wildlife

species except trumpeter swan and grizzly bear, although there have been unofficial reports of

grizzly bears on the Lander Slope.

The NHTs have no direct beneficial impact on special status wildlife, however to the extent that

management of surface-disturbing and development activities are restricted within approximately

1⁄4 mile on each side of the trails (the ACEC area), special status wildlife habitat is also protected.

The 1⁄4-mile buffer will protect approximately 36,386 acres of habitat from surface disturbance.

Alternative A does not specifically manage lands adjacent to the CDNST; therefore, there is no

direct beneficial impact to special status wildlife.

Alternative A does not specifically manage NWSRS-eligible waterway segments along Baldwin

Creek and the Sweetwater River with WSR prescriptions, but manages them in accordance with

Lander Slope ACEC and Sweetwater Canyon WSA prescriptions, respectively. ACEC and

WSA management that protects the overall stream values and maintains habitat in its present

condition would result in beneficial impacts to special status wildlife using habitats adjacent

to these waterways.

4.4.9.3.3. Alternative B

4.4.9.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B requires surveys to determine the presence or absence of BLM sensitive species

in a project area prior to authorizing surface‐disturbing and disruptive activities. Alternative B

requires surveys and subsequent necessary mitigation for all sensitive species, not just the species

routinely surveyed (greater sage-grouse, raptors, and mountain plover). This would reduce or

eliminate adverse impacts to special status species and their habitats. Alternative B would result

in greater beneficial impacts to BLM sensitive species than Alternative A.

Alternative B establishes limits on the amount of cumulative habitat loss from modification,

fragmentation, and loss of function for each special status wildlife species. Limits are identified

to ensure that adequate habitat is available for each special status wildlife species to prevent

population declines that could contribute to the need for the USFWS to list the species under the

ESA. This management action would result in greater beneficial impacts to special status wildlife

than Alternative A, which does not specifically establish habitat loss limits.

Alternative B extends the timing limitation buffer around active special status raptor nests to 1.5

miles from the nest site and adjusts dates to reflect the later nesting and fledging periods needed

for northern goshawk and burrowing owl. Increasing the buffer size would have a beneficial

impact on ferruginous hawks because they are more sensitive to disturbance than most other

raptors, and the increased distance should prevent nesting birds from abandoning eggs or chicks.

Alternative B applies timing limitations to surface-disturbing and disruptive activities from

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 945

April 1 to August 15 to protect northern goshawks, and from April 1 to September 15 to protect

burrowing owls. Extending the protection periods and increasing the buffer distance would result

in greater beneficial impacts to special status raptors than Alternative A.

Alternative B closes greater sage-grouse habitat in the Core Area to oil and gas and geothermal

leasing to provide long-term protection of habitat from development activities. Alternative B

allows leasing outside the Core Area. Alternative B would result in much greater beneficial

impacts than Alternative A because Alternative B protects greater sage-grouse habitat in

approximately 70 percent of the planning area from adverse impacts associated with oil gas and

geothermal development activities.

Alternative B prohibits surface‐disturbing and disruptive activities within 0.6 mile of occupied or

undetermined greater sage‐grouse leks. Alternative B protects 93,410 acres of breeding habitat on

public surface lands for the long term, which represents almost a 600 percent increase in habitat

protected than under Alternative A. In addition, BLM‐authorized human activity on this same area

is prohibited between 1 hour before sunset to 1 hour after sunrise between March 1 and May 15,

unless the activity is specific to inventorying, monitoring, or viewing greater sage‐grouse. This

action would prevent noise and disruptive activities in and around leks during the breeding season

that could interfere with greater sage-grouse breeding and cause a localized population decline.

Alternative B avoids surface‐disturbing and disruptive activities from February 1 to July 31 within

3 miles of occupied leks, equating to approximately 1,339,609 acres of public surface lands, to

protect nesting greater sage-grouse. Alternative B protects 69 percent more acres of nesting

habitat in the short term than Alternative A (794,452 acres). Overall, Alternative B would result in

greater beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse breeding and nesting habitats than Alternative A.

Alternative B limits the density of disturbances in identified greater sage‐grouse breeding, nesting,

and brood‐rearing habitat to one disturbance per 640 acres, and manages cumulative surface

disturbance to be less than or equal to 2.5 percent of the sagebrush habitat in the same 640 acres.

Reducing the number and size of disturbances would reduce habitat loss and fragmentation,

maintain habitat connectivity, and ensure large patches of habitat are available for greater

sage-grouse. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts than Alternative A, which

does not impose such limitations.

To prevent area avoidance by greater sage-grouse, Alternative B prohibits new permanent

structures taller than 12 feet within 1 mile of occupied nesting habitat. Alternative B would result

in greater long-term beneficial impacts to special status wildlife than Alternative A, which avoids

these types of structures on a case-by-case basis.

Alternative B limits noise from facilities to 10 A-weighted decibels above natural ambient noise

(approximately 39 A-weighted decibels) when measured at the perimeter of occupied greater

sage‐grouse leks. This level would likely reduce adverse impacts from noise that can drown out

greater sage-grouse vocalizations during the breeding season; however, research is currently

ongoing to identify whether 10 A-weighted decibels above ambient noise is the most appropriate

noise level to protect breeding greater sage-grouse. Alternative B requires anti‐perching devices

on all new overhead powerlines in greater sage‐grouse, white-tailed prairie dog, mountain

plover, and pygmy rabbit habitats to reduce predation from raptors. In addition, the BLM will

work with ROW holders to identify conflict areas and get anti‐perching devices installed on

existing overhead powerlines in these same habitats. White-tailed prairie dogs and pygmy rabbits

are typically not as susceptible to predation from raptors using overhead powerlines as greater

sage-grouse and mountain plover. Installing anti-perching devices would likely result in beneficial

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
946 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

impacts to greater sage-grouse and mountain plover, whereas the action will likely result in

a neutral impact to white-tailed prairie dogs and pygmy rabbits. Where feasible, Alternative B

requires that new low-voltage and high-voltage utility lines be buried in greater sage‐grouse,

white-tailed prairie dog, mountain plover, and pygmy rabbit habitats. This action would result

in beneficial and adverse impacts to these species and prevent raptor deaths due to collisions

with wires and electrocution. Burying powerlines would reduce raptor predation opportunities

on special status wildlife, but could also result in the loss of habitat from trenching activities to

bury the lines. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts to special status wildlife

from these management actions than Alternative A, except that requiring anti-perching devices in

white-tailed prairie dog colonies and pygmy rabbit habitats is the same under both alternatives.

Alternative B prohibits surface‐disturbing activities in all white-tailed prairie dog colonies and

within 100 meters (approximately 60 feet) of suitable pygmy rabbit habitat. Prohibiting surface

distance in pygmy rabbit habitat would result in long-term beneficial impacts to the species

due to their small home range and the limited amount of suitable habitat in the planning area.

Like Alternative A, Alternative B surface disturbance in white-tailed prairie dog colonies could

result in adverse and beneficial impacts to the species because activities can result in animal

death or displacement, but also can create additional habitat. Alternative B protects white-tailed

prairie dog colonies large enough to support black-footed ferret populations from disturbance,

which would ensure that potential ferret reintroduction sites are not compromised. Alternative B

prohibits surface‐disturbing activities that would adversely impact special status bats and their

habitat within 1⁄4 mile of identified bat maternity roosts and hibernation areas. Alternative B

management that protects pygmy rabbit and bat habitats would result in greater beneficial impacts

than management under Alternative A; Alternative B management that protects white-tailed

prairie dog colonies would likely result in beneficial impacts the same as Alternative A.

Alternative B identifies traditional migration and travel corridors for special status wildlife as

they are identified. Management actions that keep movement corridors between seasonal habitats

and foraging areas open and unfragmented, whether corridors are on or adjacent to lands in the

planning area, would result in long-term beneficial impacts to special status wildlife.

To protect the large number of special status wildlife species and their habitats, Alternative B

closes lands in the Dubois area not in an ACEC or WSA to mineral and realty actions. Alternative

B would not result in additional habitat loss or fragmentation from surface disturbance related to

mineral extraction or ROW actions, therefore would result in greater long-term beneficial impacts

to special status wildlife than Alternative A.

4.4.9.3.3.2. Resources

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative B manages approximately 5,490 acres of land with wilderness characteristics

as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, and manages them to protect wilderness

characteristics. Through overlapping management of the Whiskey Mountain ACEC, most of the

area is closed to mineral development, mining, livestock grazing, and excluded from ROW

development. The prescriptions would directly conserve special status wildlife, including habitat

for grizzly bear, gray wolf, loggerhead shrike, sage thrasher, sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow,

and dwarf shrew. Closing the lands outside of the ACEC to motorized and mechanized travel

and managing them to protect wilderness characteristics would result in beneficial impacts

to special status wildlife species in these areas. Habitats would not be fragmented by roads,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 947

resulting in long-term beneficial impacts to special status wildlife. Human activity would result

in short-term displacement impacts, but it is expected that these lands would not receive high

levels of human activity.

Fire and Fuels

Under Alternative B, approximately 1,000 acres of prescribed fire and 1,500 acres of mechanical

treatment will be conducted each year to address rangeland fire and fuel concerns. Impacts

would be the same as for Alternative A, but will occur on more acres. Alternative B increases

the number of acres treated by prescribed fire, which could increase the risk of unanticipated

adverse impacts (i.e., hotter fires and escaped fire) to species inhabiting forest/woodland and

grassland/shrubland habitats. The beneficial impacts of prescribed fire to wildlife would be the

same or greater than Alternative A as more acres would be treated each year. Fire and fuels

management will use full suppression to address wildland fire in areas of WUI, with developed

recreation sites, with known cultural resources, and with aboveground utilities. Except for areas

with known cultural sites that likely support wildlife habitat due to their protected status, full

suppression areas have limited habitat value; therefore, impacts to special status wildlife, either

adverse or beneficial, would be minor. Impacts from full fire suppression on known cultural sites

would have a beneficial impact on special status wildlife, but the degree of benefit would depend

on the size of the affected area. Full suppression will not be utilized across much of the planning

area under Alternative B, which would increase the risks of landscape-level fires that could cause

long-term habitat loss and displacement across large landscapes.

Vegetation

Alternative B manages forests and woodlands to benefit special status wildlife without using

traditional silviculture practices, such as clear-cuts, except to address public safety concerns or in

areas where forest health goals cannot be met without their use. Like general wildlife, special

status wildlife typically avoid forest habitats in WUI areas and campgrounds due to the presence

of humans, noise, and pets. Avoiding silviculture practices such a timber sales, selective cutting,

and thinning would result in beneficial impacts to special status wildlife in the short term, because

forest/woodland species are typically secretive and are easily disturbed by human activities. Not

managing disease outbreaks in forest habitats would likely result in the loss of forest habitat, which

would be a long-term adverse impact to timber-dependent special status wildlife. Alternative B

does not allow forest product sales in the Lander Slope/Red Canyon and South Pass areas unless

needed to address public safety or identified for wildlife habitat improvement. The elimination

of noise and human presence related to tree or firewood cutting would have a beneficial impact

on special status wildlife. Special status wildlife could be adversely impacted if timber gets too

dense to allow sunlight to reach the forest floor and prevents the growth of understory plants.

Alternative B manages grasslands and shrublands for biological diversity and to benefit special

status wildlife habitats. Many special status wildlife species live entirely within sagebrush-grass

habitats, and management that maintains or enhances sagebrush habitats would result in long-term

beneficial impacts to these species. Soil and vegetative treatments are used where needed to

improve plant diversity, which would have beneficial impacts by creating a mix of grasses, forbs,

and shrubs to meet special status species dietary and hiding-cover requirements. Beneficial

impacts to wildlife would be slightly greater under Alternative B than under Alternative

A, because Alternative B focuses on wildlife and special status species when managing

grassland/shrubland habitats.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
948 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of surface water,

riparian-wetland areas, playas, and delineated 100-year floodplains, increasing protection on an

additional 125,403 acres than Alternative A. Habitats remaining intact and unfragmented would

result in direct beneficial impacts to special status wildlife, including amphibians, trumpeter swan,

bald eagle, long-billed curlew, yellow-billed cuckoo, white-faced ibis, and greater sage-grouse.

Alternative B closes and reclaims roads that degrade riparian-wetland conditions, would

improve special status wildlife habitats. Alternative B focuses on changes in livestock grazing

management (season of use, livestock numbers, and grazing rotation) rather than constructing

range improvements to facilitate riparian-wetland improvement and move areas toward PFC.

Having less infrastructure on the landscape that encourages increased livestock use or creates

hazards or barriers to movement would result in long-term beneficial impacts.

Wild Horses

Alternative B removes and modifies fences to facilitate movement among wild horse herds, which

would have a beneficial impact on special status wildlife movement and reduce the number of

collision hazards, primarily for special status birds. Establishing viewing loops for wild horses

could lead to increased vehicle traffic and short-term displacement of wildlife using areas adjacent

to the roads. It is expected that viewing loops would utilize existing roads and trails and no

additional surface disturbance, and subsequent special status wildlife habitat loss, would occur.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

The area of protection surrounding cultural and paleontological resources increases under

Alternative B, which would increase the amount of special status wildlife habitat protected near

the sites. Locatable mineral withdrawals are pursued for the Warm Springs Canyon Flume

and fossil areas in the Beaver Rim and Bison Basin proposed NNLs, and these areas will be

subject to an NSO restriction for mineral leasing. These actions would conserve special status

species habitat and result in greater beneficial impacts than Alternative A because more acres

are protected from long-term habitat loss and fragmentation.

4.4.9.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Minerals

Alternative B allows locatable mineral entry on 954,776 acres (40 percent) of public surface and

1,167,862 acres (42 percent) of federal mineral estate; impacts from exploration and development

activities would be the same as under Alternative A, but would occur on approximately 57 percent

fewer acres of special status wildlife habitat. Alternative B pursues locatable mineral withdrawals

on approximately 1,632,605 acres (68 percent) of the federal surface and mineral estate in the

planning area. Lands with federal mineral estate pursued for withdrawal include 1,395,084 acres

of mineral estate in the greater sage-grouse Core Area and 38,286 acres of mineral estate in LAUs.

These acres equate to approximately 72 percent of the total federal mineral estate in the Core Area

and 54 percent of the total federal mineral estate in LAUs. Management that pursues withdrawals

would also have beneficial impacts on other special status wildlife species occupying the same

habitats as greater sage-grouse and Canada lynx. Withdrawals would protect habitat from mineral

exploration and development activities that result in habitat loss and wildlife displacement.

Alternative B opens a total of 816,619 acres (34 percent) of public surface to geothermal leasing

and opens 529,576 acres (22 percent) of public surface to oil and gas leasing. Impacts to

special status wildlife from exploration and development activities would be the same as under

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 949

Alternative A, but would occur on approximately 60 percent fewer acres of habitat. Alternative B

closes the greater sage-grouse Core Area to oil and gas and geothermal leasing, which would

result in long-term beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse in most of the planning area.

Alternative closes approximately 31 percent of lands having high and moderate potential for oil

and gas to leasing, which would reduce habitat loss, fragmentation, and connectivity impacts for

greater sage-grouse and other special status wildlife caused by large-scale, intensive development

activities. Alternative B closes most of the acres in LAUs to mineral leasing and opens only 7

acres; this would result in long-term beneficial impacts to species inhabiting the Dubois area.

Under Alternative B, it is anticipated that approximately 536 acres would be disturbed each year

through oil and gas development activities, with 274 acres disturbed in the long term. Alternative

B would disturb approximately 31 percent fewer acres than Alternative A, which would result

in fewer adverse impacts to special status wildlife and their habitats. Alternative B opens the

fewest acres to mineral leasing and potential future development, resulting in the least amount

of habitat and habitat connectivity loss and fragmentation, and therefore greater beneficial

impacts to special status wildlife.

Alternative B extends seasonal protections for greater sage-grouse, mountain plover, and raptor

breeding and nesting sites to O&M of developed projects if the activity is determined to be

detrimental to wildlife. Activities such as hydraulic fracturing (called fracking), powerline

reconstruction, range improvements, and road maintenance are subject to timing limitations to

protect wildlife. These types of activities can cause animal disturbance during the sensitive

breeding and nesting period due to the length of time it takes to complete the work, the level of

noise generated, and presence of people and equipment. It is expected that the O&M of projects

would result in both short-term adverse impacts related to animal displacement and long-term

adverse impacts if the level of activity results in area avoidance or loss of nests or young.

Alternative B would result in greater short-term beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative

A, because Alternative B applies seasonal stipulations to disruptive activities associated with

O&M of existing projects.

Areas closed to leasing or subject to major constraints are closed to geophysical activities and

areas open are subject to the stipulations for surface-disturbing, disruptive activities, and vehicle

travel identified for the area. Closing areas will provide long-term protection from adverse

impacts caused by cross-country motorized travel, vegetation crushing and possible loss, and

wildlife displacement. Restricting geophysical activities during sensitive times such as breeding,

nesting, and winter periods will prevent abandonment or loss of nests or young, providing

short-term beneficial impacts.

Alternative B opens a total of 464,859 acres (19 percent of the planning area) to phosphate

leasing, of which 2,699 acres are in lands identified as having phosphate potential. Of the total

acres open, 210,064 acres are in the greater sage-grouse Core Area, which equates to 12 percent

of the Core Area in the planning area and approximately 13 percent of the acres open under

Alternative A. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts to sagebrush-obligate

special status wildlife than Alternative A, because Alternative B closes more grassland/shrubland

habitat to leasing, which would prevent permanent habitat loss and fragmentation from phosphate

extraction where it occurs. Impacts to Canada lynx from phosphate leasing would be the same as

under Alternative A because these habitats do not have potential for phosphate resources. Overall,

Alternative B closes more acres of special status wildlife habitat to phosphate leasing and protects

more acres in the long term from phosphate development activities; this would result in greater

beneficial impacts to special status wildlife than Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
950 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative B opens approximately 185,266 surface acres (8 percent of the planning area) to

mineral materials disposals, of which 85,611 acres overlap the greater sage-grouse Core Area.

Alternative B closes 2,208,943 acres to mineral materials disposals, primarily in ACECs. Areas

closed provide habitat for special status birds and mammals and closure would prevent habitat

loss and fragmentation and result in long-term beneficial impacts. Alternative B would result

in greater beneficial impacts to special status wildlife than Alternative A because Alternative B

closes more acres to mineral materials disposals.

Lands

Alternative B makes available 5,436 acres for land tenure disposal by sale, exchange, or other

methods, and an additional 1,435 acres with restrictions on how lands can be used. Alternative B

reduces the amount of land available for land tenure adjustments by 32 percent over Alternative A

and keeps more acres in public ownership, subject to management that considers special status

wildlife values.

Renewable Energy

Alternative B wind energy management would result in greater beneficial impacts to special status

wildlife than Alternative A because Alternative B opens just 41,372 acres (2 percent) of public

surface lands in the planning area to development, which is 98 percent less acres than Alternative

A. Alternative B would result in substantially less risk of adverse impacts to special status wildlife

from loss and fragmentation of habitats and the construction of wind turbines, which can be

hazards to birds and bats. Alternative B closes the greater sage-grouse Core Area to wind-energy

development, which would beneficially impact the species in most of its range in the planning area.

ROWs and Corridors

Alternative B opens 475,181 acres (20 percent of the planning area) to ROWs, including 218,020

acres of the greater sage-grouse Core Area. Alternative B opens 86 percent fewer acres to ROWs

in Core Area than Alternative A. Alternative B would provide long-term habitat protection from

major ROWs for all special status wildlife using the excluded areas. Alternative B manages

315,962 acres as ROW avoidance areas, of which 138,616 acres are in the Core Area. It is

expected that adverse impacts such as habitat loss and fragmentation and wildlife displacement

from ROW projects in avoidance areas would be limited because projects would only be

constructed if there is no other feasible site. Alternative B designates three utility corridors

encompassing 15,364 acres in the planning area, with corridor widths ranging from 400 feet

near NHTs to a minimum of 3,500 feet in the national energy corridor. Concentrating ROWs in

corridors would result in beneficial impacts by reducing the amount of new surface disturbance

in habitats and limiting the amount of new surface disturbance in previously undisturbed and

unfragmented habitats. Alternative B would result in the fewest adverse impacts to special status

wildlife compared to other alternatives because it excludes or avoid more acres for ROWs, thus

providing long-term protection of habitat.

Livestock Grazing Management

Alternative B opens approximately 2,312,095 acres (97 percent of the planning area) for livestock

grazing, 12,839 fewer acres than Alternative A. Alternative B closes more acres in grizzly bear

and gray wolf habitats, which would reduce livestock predation impacts from these species.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 951

Closing Sweetwater Canyon to livestock grazing would beneficially impact special status

amphibians and birds by eliminating livestock concentration in riparian-wetland habitat that could

lead to a decline in habitat quality. Riparian-wetland habitat and adjacent shrubland habitat is

used extensively for bird nesting and brood-rearing cover, and eliminating livestock grazing

would reduce plant utilization (above big-game plant utilization) that could reduce nesting hiding

cover. Closing additional lands in the Dubois area will benefit special status wildlife using those

areas. To address potential predation concerns, Alternative B adjusts livestock grazing use dates

on all allotments in the Dubois area that overlap times when grizzly bears emerge are likely be

in the allotment. In most cases, Alternative B does not allow livestock grazing before June 15,

therefore eliminating or reducing the potential for conflicts between grizzly bears and livestock

that could result in accidental or illegal take of grizzly bears.

Under Alternative B, livestock grazing levels will not exceed light utilization in areas preferred

by livestock, typically riparian-wetland areas, adjacent upland areas, and around salt and mineral

supplements and water troughs and developments. Alternative B prohibits salt or mineral

supplements within 1⁄2 mile of riparian-wetland habitats to prevent livestock congregation at water

sources; this increases the protection under Alternative A by 1⁄4 mile. This action would help

reduce livestock impacts to riparian-wetland habitats essential for most species of special status

wildlife. Alternative B also prohibits the placement of salt or mineral supplements within 0.6 mile

of greater sage-grouse leks, which would protect the breeding area and adjacent nesting habitat

from livestock trampling and the impacts of heavy plant utilization. Alternative B focuses on the

use of livestock grazing management strategies that do not require the construction of additional

water sources or fences to maintain, enhance, or achieve rangeland health. It is assumed that no

new reservoirs, wells, spring developments, or fences would be constructed during the planning

period. Not increasing the number of range improvements that could impede or pose a hazard to

movement, increase plant utilization in localized areas, and/or result in habitat loss, fragmentation,

and modification would result in beneficial impacts to special status wildlife. As opportunities

arise, Alternative B removes or modifies fences built for livestock management to address adverse

impacts to special status wildlife movement, which would result in long-term beneficial impacts.

Alternative B prohibits livestock water development projects in greater sage‐grouse nesting areas

to prevent heavy grazing utilization levels that could adversely impact the availability of adequate

nesting cover. This action would provide long-term protection of nesting habitat. To reduce

crossing or flight hazards and curtail additional habitat fragmentation, Alternative B does not

allow new fences unless they would be necessary to address human or wildlife safety concerns,

and removes existing fences where appropriate.

Overall, Alternative B grazing management would result in greater long-term beneficial impacts

to special status wildlife than Alternative A.

Recreation and Travel Management

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B withdraws 1,487 more acres around five interpretive

sites from locatable mineral exploration and development. This management action would

withdraw and protect the largest number of acres of special status wildlife habitat around

recreation sites compared to the other alternatives; however, special status wildlife do not

extensively use habitats at or adjacent to interpretative sites due to the increased level of human

activity. Alternative B manages as SRMAs the ERMAs listed under Alternative A and excludes

the areas from mineral leasing, locatable mineral exploration and development, wind-energy

development, and ROWs. This action would result in greater beneficial impacts to special status

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
952 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

wildlife habitat than Alternative A, but could cause wildlife displacement or area avoidance

because of an increase in human presence in the SRMAs.

Alternative B limits motorized travel to existing roads and trails on 2,128,741 acres (89 percent of

the planning area) and limits motorized travel to designated roads and trails on 193,704 acres

(8 percent of the planning area). Alternative B limits motorized travel to designated roads and

trails on 30,629 more acres than Alternative A, which would reduce the potential for habitat loss

and fragmentation that can result from all the roads and trails being open to motorized vehicle

travel. Increasing the number of acres on which motorized travel is limited to designated roads

and trails would increase protections for special status wildlife by directing roads and travel

away from sensitive habitats.

Alternative B increases the number of acres closed to motorized travel to 71,761 acres, or

approximately 3 percent of the planning area. In addition to motorized travel, Alternative B

closes those acres to mechanized travel. Closing more areas would result in long-term beneficial

impacts to special status wildlife by eliminating habitat loss and fragmentation and wildlife

displacement. Alternative B closes all roads and trails in WSAs to motorized and mechanized

travel, which would increase the beneficial impact of these areas to special status wildlife. Roads

and trails in closure areas would rehabilitate over time, returning the disturbed roads to usable

habitat. Alternative B seasonally closes 116,805 acres of habitat, 5,803 more than Alternative

A, therefore increasing the amount of area protected during sensitive winter, breeding, and

birthing/nesting periods.

4.4.9.3.3.4. Special Designations

See the Special Designations section of this chapter for specific management actions regarding

ACECs, Congressionally Designated Trails, and WSAs.

Alternative B designates 15 ACECs totaling 1,492,990 acres (62 percent of the planning area).

Beneficial impacts to special status wildlife would be similar to impacts under Alternative A, but

would occur on 1,373,368 more acres, approximately 12 times the number of acres designated

under Alternative A. Alternative B manages ACECs with the most restrictive mineral and

realty prescriptions, which would protect special status wildlife habitat in the long term from

being lost or fragmented. This management would have direct beneficial impacts on special

status wildlife and their associated habitat in the long term by (1) closing lands to mineral

leasing, (2) pursuing locatable mineral entry withdrawals, (3) closing or limiting motorized

vehicle use, (4) excluding major utility systems, ROWs, and wind-energy development, and (5)

prohibiting other surface-disturbing activities not compatible with retaining or enhancing the

areas' values. Alternative B designates the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

ACEC (1,246,791 acres) specifically to provide long-term protection to greater sage-grouse and

their seasonal habitats and provide an area for the continuation of ongoing and future greater

sage-grouse research. This ACEC incorporates 72 percent of the greater sage-grouse Core Area

on public lands in the planning area. Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts

to all sagebrush-obligate special status wildlife and their habitats than Alternative A, because

Alternative B designates more acres and increases the level of protection from surface-disturbing

and disruptive activities.

Alternative B protects the area within 5 miles either side of NHTs and the CDNST (the designated

ACEC) from surface disturbance and facilities, unless projects would not be visible from the

trails; this an increase of 4.75 miles over Alternative A for NHTs and 5 miles for the CDNST. This

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 953

management would result in direct beneficial impacts to sagebrush-obligate and riparian-wetland

special status wildlife because approximately 468,183 (NHT) acres and 259,380 (CDNST) acres

would be protected from activities that could result in the loss and fragmentation of habitats.

Many of these acres overlap, so the total is less than the sum of the acres for each type of trail.

Alternative B recommends NWSRS-eligible waterway segments as suitable for inclusion in

the NWSRS and closes lands within 1⁄4 mile of these waterways to mineral and realty actions

and recommends them for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Alternative B also closes

areas to motorized and mechanized travel and activities that would change the character of the

waterways and adjacent areas. Management that reduces or eliminates the potential for habitat

loss and fragmentation would beneficially impact special status wildlife. Alternative B increases

the level of protection from surface-disturbing activities, and therefore would result in greater

beneficial impacts than Alternative A.

4.4.9.3.4. Alternative C

4.4.9.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C requires surveys for BLM sensitive species on a case-by-case basis before

authorizing actions and requires protective actions when appropriate. This would result in impacts

the same as Alternative A and fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B, because authorized

activities could adversely impact some species where information is lacking.

Alternative C addresses habitat loss for special status wildlife on a case-by-case basis and does

not establish limits for habitat loss except as required to protect ESA-listed species. Habitat

loss not restricted on a cumulative basis could cause population declines not only in localized

areas, but also throughout the species range. Alternative C would result more adverse impacts

to special status wildlife than alternatives A and B, and almost the same impacts to ESA-listed

species as Alternative B.

Alternative C applies a TLS to prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 1⁄2 mile of active

peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, burrowing owl, and ferruginous hawk nests from February 1

to July 31. This nesting buffer is 1⁄4 mile less than the buffer under Alternative A and 1 mile less

than the buffer under Alternative B. Like Alternative A, the date range would adequately protect

nesting and fledging ferruginous hawks and peregrine falcons, but would not be long enough to

cover nesting and fledging northern goshawks and burrowing owls, therefore Alternative C

would result in the same long-term adverse impacts to northern goshawks and burrowing owls as

Alternative A. A 1⁄2-mile seasonal buffer would not be large enough to protect nesting ferruginous

hawks from disturbance activities and would increase the risk of nest or chick abandonment for

nesting peregrine falcons, northern goshawks, and burrowing owls. Alternative C would provide

less protection for nesting raptors than alternatives A and B and therefore fewer beneficial impacts.

Like Alternative A, Alternative C opens the greater sage-grouse Core Area to oil and gas and

geothermal leasing. Alternative C would result in impacts the same as Alternative A and much

more adverse impacts than Alternative B, which closes the Core Area to leasing and eliminating

the potential for adverse impacts from new development activities. Alternative C prohibits

surface‐disturbing and disruptive activities in or within 1⁄4 mile of occupied greater sage‐grouse

leks and avoids surface‐disturbing and disruptive activities in nesting habitat within 2 miles of

occupied leks from February 1 to July 31. Management and impacts under Alternative C would

be the same as under Alternative A, because Alternative C management actions would provide

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
954 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

long-term protection of 16,283 acres of lek habitat and short-term protection for 794,452 acres

of greater sage-grouse nesting habitat. Alternatives A and C would protect substantially fewer

acres of lek habitat and nesting habitat than Alternative B. Alternative C avoids BLM‐authorized

human activities within 1⁄4 mile of the perimeter of occupied greater sage-grouse leks between 8

p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 to May 15 unless activity is specific to inventorying, monitoring,

or viewing greater sage‐grouse. Alternative C would result in the same beneficial impacts as

Alternative A and fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

Like Alternative A, Alternative C does not limit the density of disturbances or acres of surface

disturbance in identified greater sage‐grouse breeding, nesting, and brood‐rearing habitat. Surface

disturbances that are close together could adversely impact the availability and usability of

habitats and could decrease localized greater sage-grouse populations. Alternative C would

result in more adverse impacts than Alternative B, which establishes disturbance densities, and

the same impacts as Alternative A.

Alternative C allows high‐profile structures in greater sage‐grouse nesting habitats. Increased

predation on nesting greater sage-grouse would occur from raptors utilizing tall structures as

hunting perches, which could lead to greater sage-grouse population declines in localized areas.

Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts from this management action than Alternative

A, which allows tall structures on a case-by-case basis, and Alternative B, which prohibits tall

structures within 1 mile of occupied greater sage-grouse nesting habitat.

Alternative C limits facilities that generate noise 10 A-weighted decibels above natural ambient

noise when measured at the perimeter of occupied greater sage‐grouse leks during the period of

March 1 to May 15. This management would reduce noise that can affect male greater sage-grouse

vocalizations during breeding activities. Alternative C would result in fewer beneficial impacts

than Alternative B because Alternative C protects greater sage-grouse from noise impacts only

during the breeding season and not during the remainder of the year. Alternative C would result in

greater beneficial impacts than Alternative A, which endeavors to reduce, but not specifically

limit, facility noise around occupied leks.

Alternative C allows the construction of aboveground utility lines in greater sage‐grouse,

white-tailed prairie dog, mountain plover, and pygmy rabbit habitats and requires, on a

case-by-case basis, that utility lines be buried. Alternative C would result in adverse and beneficial

impacts the same as Alternative A and more adverse impacts than Alternative B, which requires

that more utility lines be buried to prevent electrocution and eliminate or reduce opportunities for

predation by raptors. Alternative C requires anti-perching devices on new overhead powerlines

on a case-by-case basis, which would not alleviate predation concerns in areas where devices are

not installed. Alternative C would result in impacts the same as Alternative A, and alternatives A

and C would result in greater adverse and fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B, which

requires anti-perching devices on all new overhead powerlines and seeks opportunities to retrofit

existing powerlines.

Surface-disturbing activities are avoided in white‐tailed prairie dog complexes larger than 100

acres on a case‐by‐case basis. This management will protect larger white-tailed prairie dog

colonies that are large enough to potentially support a black-footed ferret population, but will

not protect smaller colonies from disturbance that can result in the loss of prairie dogs through

mortality or colony abandonment. The majority of white-tailed dog colonies or complexes in the

planning area are smaller than 100 acres in size; therefore, there would be adverse impacts to the

majority of the colonies in the planning area under Alternative C.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 955

Alternative C allows surface‐disturbing activities in occupied pygmy rabbit habitats on a

case‐by‐case basis. Activities that result in loss of habitat would ultimately result in a decline in

overall population numbers. Alternative C would result in impacts the same as Alternative A, and

alternatives A and C would result in more adverse impacts than Alternative B, which prohibits

surface disturbance in occupied pygmy rabbit habitat.

Alternative C allows surface‐disturbing and disruptive activities in or adjacent to bat maternity

roosts and hibernation areas unless direct bat mortality would occur. Activities can impact insect

foraging areas, which would adversely impact food sources needed for nursing special status bats;

this could lead to loss of young. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to bats than

Alternative B, which prohibits disturbance within 1⁄4 mile of maternity roosts and hibernacula,

and would result in almost the same impacts as Alternative A, which avoids disturbance on

a case-by-case basis.

Alternative C preserves essential migration and travel corridors needed for ESA-protected

species, and does not specifically manage corridors for BLM sensitive species. Alternative C

would beneficially impact threatened and endangered species, however this management would

adversely impact other special status wildlife that require traditional corridors to access seasonal

or foraging habitats unless these corridors overlap the corridors for the threatened and endangered

species. Alternative C would result in greater beneficial impacts to ESA-listed species than

Alternative A and the same beneficial impacts as Alternative B; however, Alternative C would

result in more adverse impacts to BLM sensitive species than alternatives A and B.

Alternative C applies standard stipulations to resource uses (i.e., seasonal raptor nesting

protection and riparian-wetland avoidance) to protect special status wildlife in the Dubois area,

except in the Whiskey Mountain and Dubois Badlands WSAs, which Alternative C manages

under BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas. BLM Manual 6330 offers

additional protection to special status wildlife because it closes WSAs to most surface-disturbing

activities. Lands in the Whiskey Mountain and East Fork ACECs designated under Alternative A

would not receive the same protections under Alternative C; therefore, surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities in this areas would adversely impact special status wildlife habitats. Standard

stipulations would not prevent the loss or fragmentation of habitats for the concentration of special

status species that inhabit the Dubois area. Alternative C would result in greater potential for

adverse impacts to special status wildlife throughout the Dubois area than alternatives A and B.

4.4.9.3.4.2. Resources

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative C does not specially manage lands with wilderness characteristics in the Little Red

Creek Complex which would reduce the quality and quantity of special status wildlife habitat

because the alternative opens the entire area to surface-disturbing and disruptive activities.

Habitat loss, fragmentation, and avoidance due to development and OHV activities would result

in long-term adverse impacts to special status wildlife using the area. Increased human presence

related to project development, and O&M of projects would result in short-term displacement

impacts, depending on the amount of surface disturbance and the timing of disturbance activities.

Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to special status wildlife than the other

alternatives, because Alternative C does not provide the additional habitat protections of ACEC

designation and manages all lands with standard timing limitations. Because Alternative B

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
956 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

manages only 5,490 acres as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to protect wilderness

character, impacts under Alternative C are only locally important.

Fire and Fuels

Under Alternative C, approximately 300 acres will be treated each year by prescribed fire and 500

acres will be treated using mechanical methods, which is the same as Alternative A. Alternative C

will treat less acres using prescribed fire than Alternative B, decreasing the risk of unanticipated

adverse impacts to special status wildlife habitats and reducing the beneficial impacts. Alternative

C fire and fuels management will use full suppression to address wildland fire across the planning

area, including the use of heavy equipment. Impacts to special status wildlife would be the same

as under Alternative A. Full suppression could adversely impact wildlife in grassland/shrubland

ecosystems that benefit from periodic fire needed to rejuvenate sagebrush and promote plant

diversity, but would beneficially impact special status wildlife by reducing the potential for

landscape-level wildfires.

Vegetation

Impacts to wildlife from forest management actions under Alternative C would be similar to

impacts under Alternative A. The full range of silviculture techniques is used to improve forest

health, provide forest products, and address forest insect and disease outbreaks. Managing for

forest health and limited forest product sales would beneficially impact special status wildlife in

the long term by maintaining healthy and diverse timber stands. Timber sales and cutting practices

would adversely impact special status wildlife in the short term by causing displacement due to

noise, road travel, and human presence, and in the long term from habitat loss, fragmentation, or

alteration.

Alternative C manages grasslands and shrublands to maximize forage production on the

ecological site and uses vegetative treatments to change plant community composition so as

to facilitate grazing management. In most areas, management would result in an increase in

herbaceous vegetation in the plant community and a decrease in shrubs. Treatments focused on

increasing grass plant production would beneficially impact special status wildlife that occupy

primarily grassland habitats, such as swift fox, Baird’s sparrow, and mountain plover. Beneficial

impacts would also apply, though to a lesser degree, to burrowing owls, white-tailed prairie

dogs, and black-footed ferrets because they are generally found in habitats with a balance of

sagebrush and grasses in the plant community. Increasing herbaceous forage would provide

additional security cover for nesting and birthing activities for special status birds and mammals.

Sagebrush- and other shrub-obligate species, including greater sage-grouse, neotropical migrants,

pygmy rabbits, dwarf shrew, swift fox, gray wolf, and ferruginous hawks, would likely experience

adverse impacts if there is a substantial loss of shrubs in the plant community that reduces suitable

habitat. Alternative C would likely adversely impact shrub-obligate special status wildlife more

than alternatives A and B, and would result in beneficial impacts to grass obligate species. There

are more sagebrush- or sagebrush-grass-obligate species in the planning area than grass-obligate

species; therefore, Alternative C could adversely impact more special status wildlife species in

the long term than it would beneficially impact.

Alternative C prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of riparian-wetland areas,

but allows a lesser distance if riparian-wetland areas would still be adequately protected. More

acres would likely be disturbed in special status wildlife habitats adjacent to riparian-wetland

areas under Alternative C than under alternatives A and B, which would result in a less beneficial

impact. Management needed to improve riparian-wetland areas toward PFC will consist of using

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 957

all techniques available, such as construction of range improvements, closing roads that impact

the areas, and changing livestock grazing strategies. Like Alternative A, livestock control fences

and water developments under Alternative C could result in adverse (e.g., movement barriers,

collision/entanglement hazards, and increased plant utilization) and beneficial (e.g., preventing

livestock concentration, and riparian-wetland improvements) impacts to special status wildlife.

Alternative C has the highest potential to result in adverse impacts to special status wildlife that

depend on riparian-wetland areas. Alternative B would result in the greatest beneficial impacts

to special status wildlife of all alternatives by increasing the protection distance adjacent to

riparian-wetland areas and reducing the number of fences and water developments that could

adversely impact special status wildlife and their habitats.

Wild Horses

Alternative C considers impacts to wild horse movement from new fences in HMAs, but does not

specifically remove or modify existing fences to facilitate wild horse movement. Alternative C

would result in impacts the same as Alternative A and would not provide the beneficial impacts

to special status wildlife movement or the reduction in collision hazards from fence removal or

modification that Alternative B provides. Like Alternative B, Alternative C establishes wild horse

viewing loops and would have the same impacts as Alternative B.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Alternative C beneficial impacts to special status wildlife from cultural and paleontological

resources protection would be the same as Alternative A and less than Alternative B. Alternative

B protects the most acres and increases the level of protection for cultural and paleontological

resources of all the alternatives.

4.4.9.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Minerals

Alternative C allows locatable mineral entry on 2,385,576 acres of public surface and 2,800,467

acres of federal mineral estate in the planning area (more than 99 percent); mining could occur on

almost the same number of acres of special status wildlife habitat as under Alternative A and 60

percent more acres than under Alternative B. Of the lands recommended for withdrawal, 3,540

acres overlap the greater sage-grouse Core Area and 3,485 acres are in LAUs. The number of

acres equates to less than 0.2 percent of Core Area and 13 percent of the total acres of LAUs in

the planning area. Alternative C allows existing withdrawals to expire, which would open lands,

primarily in the Dubois area, to mineral exploration and development that could result in special

status wildlife habitat loss, fragmentation, or modification. Adverse impacts from locatable

mineral exploration and development activities under Alternative C would be greater than under

Alternative A in the Dubois area and slightly greater than Alternative A throughout the rest of

the planning area. Alternative B would result in fewer adverse impacts to special status wildlife

than alternatives A and C.

Impacts from geothermal and oil and gas leasing under Alternative B would be similar to impacts

under Alternative A. Alternative C opens a total of 2,295,114 public surface acres (96 percent)

to geothermal leasing and opens 2,394,132 surface acres (more than 99 percent) open to oil and

gas leasing. Alternative C closes 99,096 acres to geothermal leasing and 78 acres to oil and gas

leasing. Of the total acres open to mineral leasing, 1,724,004 acres are in the greater sage-grouse

Core Area, which is 78 fewer acres than the total amount of Core Area in the planning area.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
958 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative C would result in a greater risk of adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse habitats

and other sagebrush-obligate special status wildlife utilizing these same habitats if leasing leads

to development activities. In LAUs, 27,022 acres are open and no acres are closed to mineral

leasing. It is anticipated that approximately 774 acres would be disturbed each year under

Alternative C through oil and gas development activities, with 402 acres being disturbed in the

long term. Alternative C will would result in almost the same impact from acres of disturbance

as Alternative A and approximately 31 percent more acres disturbed than Alternative B, which

would result in more adverse impacts to special status wildlife and their habitats. Alternative B

opens the fewest acres to mineral leasing and potential future development, which would result

in the least amount of habitat and habitat connectivity loss and fragmentation, therefore greater

beneficial impacts to special status wildlife. Overall, Alternative C would result in more adverse

impacts to special status wildlife than Alternative B and the same impact as Alternative A.

Alternative C does not include seasonal protections for greater sage-grouse, mountain plover,

and raptor nesting during O&M of developed projects. Activities that cause nesting greater

sage-grouse and other special status birds to abandon their nests or chicks can adversely impact

local populations. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts than Alternative B, that

applies seasonal protections during O&M activities, and the same impact as Alternative A in areas

where seasonal protections are not specifically identified during project analysis.

Alternative C impacts from geophysical activities would be the same as impacts under Alternative

A. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to special status wildlife than Alternative

B, because Alternative C opens more acres to geophysical activities that could adversely impact

habitats and result in nest abandonment or chick/young mortality.

Alternative C opens a total of 2,272,359 public surface acres (95 percent) to phosphate leasing.

Of the total acres open, 1,633,304 acres are in the greater sage-grouse Core Area and 26,405 acres

are in LAUs. Alternative C opens 96 percent of the acres with phosphate potential to leasing and

development, which is 17 percent more than Alternative A and 13 times more than Alternative B.

Alternative C could adversely impact more acres of special status wildlife habitat than alternatives

A and B. Alternative C would result in the greatest potential for adverse impacts to special status

wildlife and the greatest potential for permanent loss of habitat from mining.

Alternative C opens 2,252,801 acres to mineral materials disposals, of which 1,619,072 acres

overlap the greater sage-grouse Core Area. Alternative C closes approximately 141,409 surface

acres to mineral materials disposals, primarily in riparian-wetland areas, greater sage-grouse leks,

and pre-FLPMA withdrawal areas. Alternative C allows surface disturbance on a more habitat

acres than alternatives A and B; therefore, Alternative C would result in the greatest potential for

long-term adverse impacts.

Lands

Alternative C makes available 5,436 acres for land tenure disposal by sale, exchange, or other

methods, and makes available an additional 1,435 acres with restrictions on future uses. Impacts

to special status wildlife from land tenure adjustments would be the same as under Alternative B

and less than under Alternative A. Alternatives B and C retain most acres in public ownership

and subject to management that considers special status wildlife values when making land use

decisions.

Renewable Energy

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 959

Alternative C opens 2,284,235 acres (95 percent) of public surface lands in the planning

area to wind-energy development. Adverse impacts to special status wildlife from habitat

loss/fragmentation and wildlife displacement could occur on a much larger number of acres than

under Alternative B and on approximately 8 percent more acres than under Alternative A. Of the

acres open to wind-energy development, 1,645,339 acres overlap the greater sage-grouse Core

Area, which is 95 percent of the Core Area in the planning area. Alternative C management is

the same as Alternative A and would result in a greater risk of adverse impacts to special status

wildlife than Alternative B, which closes the greater sage-grouse Core Area to wind-energy

development.

ROWs and Corridors

Alternative C opens 2,247,157 acres (94 percent of the planning area) to ROWs, including

1,619,589 acres of the greater sage-grouse Core Area, which is more acres of special status

wildlife habitat than under alternatives A and B. Alternative C designates 660,908 acres as ROW

corridors located across the planning area except in the Dubois area and having widths up to 3

miles wide. Alternative C excludes ROWs on 147,053 acres, with most of the exclusion acres

being primarily along NHTs and in the Sweetwater Rocks, and avoids ROWs on another 11,714

acres. Alternative C opens more acres to ROWs and corridors than the other alternatives and

would result in the greatest adverse impacts to special status wildlife.

Livestock Grazing Management

Alternative C manages the same amount of land as open and closed to livestock grazing as

Alternative A, and impacts would be the same as under Alternative A. Alternative C would result

in fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B, because Alternative C closes fewer acres to

livestock than Alternative B. Alternative C adjusts, on a case-by-case basis, livestock grazing

season-of-use dates that overlap the time of year when grizzly bears are likely to be in the area

and conflicts could occur. Livestock management under Alternative C is the same as under

Alternative A, but would result in fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B because Alternative

C would not always adjust grazing dates; this could allow conflicts between grizzly bears and

livestock and result in the removal of offending bears.

Alternative C employs all livestock grazing management strategies, including the use of fences and

water developments, to maintain, enhance, or achieve rangeland health. Livestock management

actions would disturb approximately 100 acres each year during construction and/or development

of range improvements, which would include approximately two reservoirs, six wells, four spring

developments, and 49 miles of fence. Alternative C would result in more acres of disturbance and

potential habitat loss from range improvements than the other alternatives. Alternative C would

increase habitat fragmentation for special status wildlife by allowing 34 additional miles of fence

per year than Alternative A and 49 more miles per year than Alternative B.

Under Alternative C, livestock grazing levels will not exceed moderate utilization in areas

preferred by livestock. Moderate grazing would increase plant utilization and decrease the amount

of forage and cover available for special status wildlife. Alternative C prohibits the placement of

salt or mineral supplements within 1⁄4 mile of riparian-wetland areas, but places supplements to

maximize livestock utilization of the range. Increasing livestock grazing utilization in sensitive

special status wildlife habitats would likely result in wildlife displacement, increased plant

utilization, and loss of habitat around the supplement locations. Adverse impacts under Alternative

C would be greater than under Alternative B and slightly greater than Alternative A. Alternative

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
960 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

C removes or modifies fences to facilitate livestock movement and management, which would not

likely beneficially impact special status wildlife movement or reduce collision hazards.

Like Alternative A, Alternative C allows water development projects and new fences in greater

sage-grouse nesting habitats on a case-by‐case basis. Where projects are constructed, there could

be adverse impacts to special status wildlife from increased livestock utilization of herbaceous

plants, increased habitat fragmentation, and the introduction of new fence hazards. Alternative

C would result in the same adverse impacts as Alternative A and more adverse impacts than

Alternative B.

Overall, livestock grazing under Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to special

status wildlife than alternatives A and B because Alternative C allows more range improvements

and higher plant utilization levels.

Recreation and Travel Management

Alternative C does not withdraw lands around developed recreation sites, campgrounds, and

interpretive sites, and opens lands to locatable mineral exploration and development. Habitat

would be lost if mining operations occur in these areas. Alternative C would result in more

adverse impacts to special status wildlife than alternatives A and B, although impacts would

not be considered substantial due to the limited use of these areas by wildlife. Alternative C

recreation management areas would be ERMAs and would not be afforded additional protections

from disturbance impacts. Alternative C adverse impacts to special status wildlife would be the

same as under Alternative A and greater than under Alternative B.

Alternative C limits motorized travel to existing roads and trails on 2,337,958 acres (98 percent

of the planning area), an increase of 5 percent over Alternative A and an increase of 10 percent

over Alternative B. Alternative C limits motorized travel to designated roads and trails on 50,776

acres (112,299 fewer acres than Alternative A and 142,928 fewer acres than Alternative B), which

could reduce impacts to sensitive habitats for special status wildlife. Alternative C closes 5,472

acres (0.2 percent of the planning area) to motorized and mechanized travel and does not apply

any seasonal closures. Alternative C would result in adverse impacts to sensitive habitats and

during sensitive times of the year such as winter, breeding, and birthing/nesting periods.

Restrictions to motorized vehicle use decrease under Alternative C, and special status wildlife in

a larger percentage of the planning area would experience more adverse impacts from habitat

loss/fragmentation and animal disturbance/displacement than under alternatives A and B.

4.4.9.3.4.4. Special Designations

See the Special Designations section of this chapter for specific management actions regarding

special designations under Alternative C.

Alternative C does not designate ACECs and manages lands using standard stipulations.

Alternative C applies a TLS for surface-disturbing activities in greater sage-grouse and raptor

nesting habitat, which would result in short-term beneficial impacts. Alternative A applies an

NSO restriction for greater sage-grouse leks, which would result in long-term beneficial impacts,

although the NSO protection buffer is smaller under Alternative C than under Alternative B.

Alternative C does not require Plans of Operation for lands open for locatable mineral exploration,

which would result in impacts from habitat loss and animal displacement because there would be

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 961

little opportunity to mitigate adverse impacts. Alternative C would have the greatest potential to

result in habitat loss and fragmentation and impair connectivity between seasonal habitats.

Alternative C recognizes lands within 1⁄4 mile either side of NHTs and the CDNST as part of

the NLCS landscape, and restricts development on the VRM Class I and Class II historic trail

segments of the NHTs. Alternative C would result in fewer beneficial impacts to special status

wildlife than alternatives A and B along the NHTs and almost the same beneficial impacts

as Alternative A along the CDNST.

Alternative C does not recommend NWSRS-eligible waterway segment as suitable for inclusion

in the NWSRS. Alternative C manages the Sweetwater River waterway and associated special

status wildlife habitat under BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas, which

is the same management as Alternative A and less protective than management under Alternative

B. Alternative C manages the Baldwin Creek waterway using standard stipulations that are less

protective than Alternative A or Alternative B, which would have ACEC prescriptions, and

would result in the greatest potential for adverse impacts to special status wildlife. Overall,

Alternative C prescribes the least amount of protection, therefore would result in the most adverse

impacts to special status wildlife.

4.4.9.3.5. Alternative D

4.4.9.3.5.1. Program Management

Like alternatives A and C, Alternative D requires, on a case‐by‐case basis, surveys to determine

the presence or absence of BLM sensitive species in suitable habitat prior to authorizing activities.

When species are determined to be present, appropriate mitigation is required to protect the

species and limit adverse impacts to their habitats. Like alternatives A and C, Alternative D

would result in fewer beneficial impacts to special status species than Alternative B; Alternative B

requires surveys in all cases and therefore would provide opportunities to mitigate impacts to

BLM sensitive species for which there is no existing information.

Alternative D establishes DDAs in the Shoshoni-Lysite area, the Gas Hills, and in the Beaver

Creek area to focus on energy development. Surface use and TLSs to protect wildlife and special

status wildlife would be applied at the leasing stage but exceptions would be frequently authorized

to exempt crucial winter range protection to facilitate development. Exceptions would not be

routinely authorized for protections for special status species. Granting exceptions for big game

crucial winter range would adversely impact special status wildlife that occupy the same area,

such as migratory songbirds, that are not subject to specific timing or surface use stipulations.

Alternative D establishes acceptable limits for habitat loss, modification, fragmentation, and loss

of function for special status species on a case-by-case basis and limits for greater sage-grouse in

Core Area are established using the identified disturbance thresholds and uses Required Design

Features to limit surface disturbance and improve habitat reclamation. This alternative would

beneficially impact species identified as being at greater risk from habitat changes that can

contribute to localized population declines. There could be uncontrolled habitat loss for species

not on the priority list under Alternative D. Alternative D would result in greater beneficial

impacts than alternatives A and C, which do not establish limits or apply limits only as required by

the USFWS to protect threatened and endangered species. Alternative B establishes limits for all

special status wildlife species and would result in greater beneficial impacts than Alternative D.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
962 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative D applies a TLS to prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 3⁄4 mile of active

peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, and burrowing owl nests and within 1 mile of ferruginous

hawk nests. The protection dates for peregrine falcon and ferruginous hawk are February 1 to

July 31, which are the same dates for most raptor species (see the Fish and Wildlife Resources –

Wildlife section for more information). The protection dates are April 1 to August 31 for northern

goshawk and April 1 to September 15 for burrowing owl. Under all alternatives, bald eagle nests

are protected from February 1 to August 15 within 1 mile of the nest. Increasing the protective

buffer for ferruginous hawks over that in alternatives A and C would offer greater protection to

active nests, because ferruginous hawks tend to be more sensitive to disturbance actions than

most other raptor species. The Alternative D TLS dates for northern goshawk and burrowing

owl are the same as under Alternative B; however, Alternative D would provide better protection

than alternatives A and C because these raptor species typically initiate nests later in spring,

thus chicks fledge later in the year.

Alternative D opens the greater sage-grouse Core Area to oil and gas and geothermal leasing.

There would be a greater risk of habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from lease development

activities under Alternative D than under Alternative B, and the same risk as under alternatives

A and C. Alternative D limits disturbances in the Core Area to an average of one oil and gas or

mining location per 640 acres and does not allow the cumulative value of existing disturbances to

exceed 5 percent of the habitat within those same 640 acres. Alternative D would result in greater

beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C, which do not limit the density of disturbances or

the cumulative acres of surface disturbance in greater sage-grouse habitat. However, Alternative

D would result in more adverse impacts than Alternative B, which limits cumulative surface

disturbance to 2.5 percent of the sagebrush habitat in the same 640 acres, half the limit than

under Alternative D.

Alternative D prohibits surface‐disturbing and disruptive activities on or within 0.6 mile of

the perimeter of occupied greater sage‐grouse leks in the Core Area and on or within 1⁄4 mile

outside the Core Area. Alternative D protects 102,212 acres of breeding habitat on public

surface lands for the long term, which represents a 3.6 percent increase in habitat protected for

the long term over Alternative A, a 3.6 percent increase over Alternative C, and a 0.4 percent

increase over Alternative B. The differences reflect that a 1⁄4-mile buffer was used around a

single point in alternatives A, B, and C whereas the buffer in Alternative D was calculated

around the newly mapped perimeter of the lek. In suitable greater sage-grouse habitat in the

Core Area, Alternative D prohibits surface‐disturbing and disruptive activities between March

15 and June 30 and extends those protections to locatable mineral exploration under a Notice to

protect nesting activities. Outside the Core Area, Alternative D prohibits surface‐disturbing and

disruptive activities between March 15 and June 30 within 2 miles of the perimeter of occupied

greater sage‐grouse leks. Alternative D shortens the nesting protection period by 4 weeks at the

beginning of the period and by 2 weeks on the end of the period over the February 1 to July 31

dates under alternatives A, B, and C. Delaying the start of the nesting period protection would not

likely be an adverse impact on greater sage-grouse because they typically do not initiate nests

before mid-March. Cutting 2 weeks off the end of the nesting period could result in adverse

impacts because nesting might not be completed before the end of June in higher elevation areas

or for birds that re-nest when first-attempt eggs/chicks are lost.

Alternative D prohibits disruptive activities between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 to May

15 on or within an 0.6-mile radius of the perimeter of greater sage-grouse leks in the Core Area

and 1⁄4-mile radius outside of the Core Area to protect greater sage-grouse strutting on leks and

to protect breeding activities. This management action is similar to the other alternatives (8

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 963

p.m. to 8 a.m. from March 1 to May 15), except that the affected time starts 2 hours earlier in

the evening. Greater sage-grouse usually arrive at leks approximately 2 hours before sunrise,

but when there is a fuller moon phase, they can arrive after sunset and be on the lek all night.

Alternative D would beneficially impact greater sage-grouse during these times by prohibiting

disruptive activities earlier in the evening.

Alternative D limits noise levels from March 1 to May 15 to 10 A-weighted decibels above

natural ambient noise, or the level determined appropriate through scientific findings, when

measured at the perimeter of occupied greater sage‐grouse leks. This level would likely reduce

adverse impacts caused by noise that drowns out greater sage-grouse vocalizations during the

breeding season. This alternative also allows for noise sources to be measured and mitigated in

other habitats important for greater sage-grouse to minimize impacts to the birds (Patricelli et

al. 2012). Alternative D management is similar to Alternative C, slightly less restrictive than

Alternative B, and more restrictive than Alternative A.

Alternative D allows new permanent, high-profile structures in greater sage-grouse nesting

habitat on a case-by-case basis. The requirement that all new structures will have anti-perching

devices installed will deter predation opportunities and provide protection to nesting greater

sage-grouse. Raptors use high-profile structures as hunting perches, and cause greater sage-grouse

to avoid areas of suitable habitat, resulting in a reduction of usable habitat. In addition to greater

sage-grouse, overhead structures can increase raptor predation on white-tailed prairie dogs,

mountain plovers, and pygmy rabbits. On a case-by-case basis, Alternative D allows the

construction of overhead powerlines in greater sage-grouse, white-tailed prairie dog, mountain

plover, and pygmy rabbit habitats and requires the installation of anti-perching devices.

Low-voltage powerlines could be required to be buried to reduce predation opportunities. These

management actions under Alternative D would result in the same or fewer adverse impacts as

Alternative A and the same or more adverse impacts than Alternative B, which prohibits new

high-profile structures within 1 mile of greater sage-grouse nesting habitat. Alternative C does not

restrict tall structures, and therefore would result in the greatest risk for adverse impacts.

Alternative D prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 200 feet of occupied pygmy rabbit

habitats and avoids these same activities in white-tailed prairie dog colonies, where possible.

Due to the pygmy rabbit’s small home range, this management action would provide long-term

protection of their habitat. This distance is not as great as under Alternative B, but would result in

more beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C, which do not specifically prohibit activities

that can cause habitat loss and animal displacement. Avoiding surface-disturbing activities in

white-tailed prairie dog colonies could protect the loss of burrow habitat and the displacement

of animals, but surface-disturbing activities could also beneficially impact the species because

prairies dogs will utilize disturbed ground to expand their colonies. It is expected that Alternative

D would result in almost the same impacts as alternatives A and C, and slightly fewer beneficial

impacts than Alternative B.

Alternative D prohibits surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within 1⁄4 mile of known bat

maternity roosts and hibernation areas unless it is determined that the action would not adversely

impact either the bats or their habitat. Alternative D would result in the same beneficial impacts

as Alternative B. Compared to alternatives A and C, alternatives B and D would better protect

these sensitive habitats from BLM-authorized activities that could make the habitat unusable or

result in localized population declines.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
964 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative D could result in the loss of movement corridors special status wildlife need to

access seasonal habitats or maintain genetic diversity, because Alternative D protects movement

corridors only on a case-by-case basis. Management under Alternative D is the same as

management under Alternative A. Both these alternatives would result in a greater risk of adverse

impacts than Alternative B, which preserves special status wildlife travel corridors in all cases,

but greater beneficial impacts than Alternative C, which preserves corridors only for threatened

and endangered species.

To protect habitats for the large number of special status wildlife species that occupy lands in the

Dubois area, Alternative D closes lands outside the Whiskey Mountain and East Fork ACECs and

the Whiskey Mountain and Dubois Badlands WSAs to most surface-disturbing activities related

to mineral and realty actions. Special status wildlife habitats in ACECs and WSAs are managed

according to the prescriptions for the respective areas. Alternative D closes the rest of the Dubois

area lands to mineral leasing and mineral materials disposals and excludes these lands to major

ROWs; however, lands will remain open to locatable mineral development. Exploration and

development activities associated with locatable minerals would likely result in adverse impacts

to special status wildlife that use affected areas and adjacent lands. Alternative D would result in

the same beneficial impact of closing special status wildlife habitat in the Dubois area to most

activities that can result in habitat loss and fragmentation as Alternative B, and much greater

beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C.

4.4.9.3.5.2. Resources

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative D manages 4,954 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics as non-WSA lands

with wilderness characteristics, slightly less acreage than is managed under Alternative B. Due to

resource protections associated with non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics management,

including closing the area to motorized travel and limiting mechanized travel to designated routes,

this management would benefit special status wildlife species in the area. Alternative D would

result in greater beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C, which allow motorized travel on all

existing roads and trails, but fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B, which prohibits both

motorized and mechanized travel. Under Alternative D, lands in the Whiskey Mountain ACEC

are subject to the ACEC prescriptions, which would beneficially impact special status wildlife

species occupying the area.

Fire and Fuels

Under Alternative D, approximately 500 acres of prescribed fire and 500 acres of mechanical

treatment will be performed each year to address rangeland fire and fuel concerns. Alternative D

increases the use of prescribed fire by 200 acres and therefore increases the risks of unintended

consequences over alternatives A and C; Alternative D decreases prescribed fire by 500 acres

compared Alternative B. Management uses a full range of suppression tactics based on the

resources at risk to address wildland fire, including the use of heavy equipment. This could

beneficially impact special status wildlife because selection of the appropriate suppression tactic

could prevent long-term adverse impacts to sensitive habitats. Alternative D could increase the

risk of adverse impacts to special status wildlife habitat from the use of heavy equipment during

suppression efforts.

Vegetation

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 965

Alternative D manages forests and woodlands to address forest and woodland health conditions,

wildlife habitat needs, and the demand for forest products using a full range of silviculture

practices. Alternative D manages treatment of forest insect and disease outbreaks and the

implementation of forest replanting on a case-by-case basis. Where there are treatments, they

would protect the greater forested landscape from catastrophic losses and therefore beneficially

impact timber-dependent special status wildlife. Alternative D allows clear-cuts with other

resource values and silviculture objectives determining the sizes and locations of the cuts. These

actions are almost the same as management actions under Alternative A, and the actions would

result in short-term adverse and long-term beneficial impacts to special status wildlife.

Approximately 600 acres of short-term disturbance are anticipated from forest and woodland

management (areas of mechanical treatments and forest product sales) over the planning period

under Alternative D. Treatments would result in beneficial and adverse impacts to special status

wildlife, depending on the species and the sizes of treatment patches.

Forest management plans will be developed for the Green Mountain Primary Forest Resource

Area and as funding permits for the South Pass and Dubois Primary Forest Resource Areas to

address the sale of commercial and over-the-counter forest products, enhancement of forest health

conditions, and the management of pine beetle infestations. Alternative D prohibits commercial

forest product sales that could adversely impact the availability of special status wildlife habitat

and increase noise and human presence stressors on wildlife species in the Lander Slope and Red

Canyon areas unless those actions are necessary to address human health and safety issues or

improve forest health. Alternative D would result in fewer adverse impacts to wildlife habitat

than alternatives A and C and slightly fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

Like Alternative A, Alternative D manages grasslands and shrublands to achieve the vegetation

attributes described in the NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions. Most special status wildlife

depend on both shrubs and herbaceous plants to meet their forage and cover needs. Alternative

D would result in greater beneficial impacts from managing for a balance of herbaceous and

woody vegetation than Alternative C, but not as much as under Alternative B, which focuses on

managing plant communities specifically for wildlife. Vegetation treatments will be utilized to

alter plant community composition to achieve rangeland health objectives and to meet resource

objectives such as maintaining or enhancing greater sage-grouse habitat. Alternative D would

result in fewer adverse impacts to special status wildlife than Alternative C, because Alternative

C uses treatments to facilitate livestock grazing management that could conflict with wildlife

habitat objectives. Overall, Alternative D would result in slightly fewer beneficial impacts from

grassland/shrubland management actions than Alternative B, almost the same beneficial impacts

as Alternative A, and more adverse impacts than Alternative C.

Alternative D applies seasonal restrictions to both crucial mule deer winter range and mule

deer winter range which will benefit special status species located in those areas. This is less

beneficial than Alternative B’s closure of more areas to mineral activities but more beneficial than

Alternative A and C’s management which do not apply the winter timing limits.

Alternative D prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of water and riparian-wetland

areas outside DDAs and closer than 500 feet inside DDAs providing adequate riparian-wetland

protection can be achieved with a lesser distance. Protecting riparian-wetland habitats from loss,

degradation, or fragmentation would beneficially impact special status wildlife because almost all

species depend on these areas to meet their forage and cover requirements. Alternative D would

result in fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B, which prohibits surface disturbance within

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
966 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

a greater distance from all riparian-wetland areas. Alternative D utilizes all tools, including

range improvement projects, travel management strategies, and lease stipulations, to improve

riparian-wetland areas and move them toward PFC. Healthy and diverse riparian-wetland habitats

would beneficially impact special status wildlife; however, an increase in fencing and livestock

grazing levels around water developments would adversely impact special status wildlife.

Alternative D would result in slightly more adverse impacts than Alternative A, much more

adverse impacts than Alternative B, and greater beneficial impacts than Alternative C.

Wild Horses

Like alternatives B and C, Alternative D establishes scenic loops for viewing wild horses in the

planning area. Alternative D would result in a slightly greater risk of adverse impacts to special

status wildlife from increased vehicle use and human presence related to viewing activities than

Alternative A. Alternative D considers impacts to wild horses when authorizing new fencing

projects and removes or modifies fences as opportunities arise to facilitate movement between

wild horse herds. In areas where new fencing is not allowed or where existing fences are removed

or modified, special status wildlife would benefit from the reduction in the number of movement

hazards. Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C and

fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

The area of protection surrounding cultural and paleontological resources under Alternative D is

much the same as under Alternative A except to the extent that extensive areas are withdrawn

from locatable mineral entry to protect cultural, wildlife, and viewshed. This is much more

beneficial than under Alternative C. Alternative D protects fewer acres of special status wildlife

habitat associated with cultural and paleontological sites than Alternative B, particularly related to

mineral exploration and development, and would result in fewer beneficial impacts to special

status wildlife than Alternative B.

4.4.9.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Minerals

Alternative D allows for locatable mineral entry on 2,351,399 acres (83 percent of the planning

area) but withdraws substantially more than Alternative A. Adverse impacts to special status

wildlife from habitat loss, modification, and/or fragmentation as a result of exploration and

development activity would occur on 0.7 percent fewer acres than Alternative A, 1.5 percent

fewer acres than Alternative C, and 57 percent more acres than Alternative B. Alternative D

pursues continuation of the existing locatable mineral withdrawals in the Whiskey Mountain and

East Fork ACECs, which would beneficially impact special status wildlife using these habitats

(bald eagle, northern goshawk, Canada lynx, grizzly bear, gray wolf, and neotropical migrants).

Alternative D pursues a withdrawal for lands in the Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area

including 4,828 acres in the Johnny Behind the Rocks RMZ that would prevent the loss of

special status wildlife habitat and beneficially impact the species using the area. Of all the lands

recommended for withdrawal, 320,081 acres overlap the greater sage-grouse Core Area and 6,903

acres are in LAUs. Required Design Features would reduce adverse impacts associated with

development in Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts to special status wildlife

than alternatives A and C, and more adverse impacts than Alternative B.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 967

Alternative D opens a total of 2,112,285 acres to geothermal leasing with standard to major

constraints and opens 2,642,527 acres to oil and gas leasing. This is 1.2 percent fewer acres than

Alternative A and 1.8 percent fewer acres than Alternative C. Alternative D opens 77 percent

more acres to leasing than Alternative B, which opens the fewest acres to mineral leasing and

potential future development. As described for Alternative A, most development is expected to

occur in areas with high and moderate potential for mineral resources that contain habitat for

numerous special status wildlife species; mineral leasing would adversely impacted special status

wildlife through habitat loss and fragmentation. New surface disturbance may result in beneficial

impacts to white-tailed prairie dogs and mountain plover, so long as activities do not occur during

the mountain plover breeding and nesting period. Under Alternative D, it is anticipated that

approximately 724 acres would be disturbed each year through oil and gas development activities,

and 375 of those acres would be disturbed in the long term. Alternative D makes available

1,678,035 acres of the greater sage-grouse Core Area to exploration and development, which is

fewer acres than alternatives A and C but more acres than Alternative B. Alternative D applies

disturbance thresholds to disturbance acres in the greater sage-grouse Core Area, as described

above under Program Management. Alternative D would result in less habitat and habitat

connectivity loss and fragmentation from lease development than alternatives A and C and more

than Alternative B. Alternative D closes the entire Dubois area to oil and gas leasing and there

would be no habitat loss and fragmentation from lease development activities; this action would

beneficially impact the large number of special status wildlife in the area.

Alternative D extends seasonal protections for greater sage-grouse, mountain plover, and raptor

nesting to activities deemed detrimental to special status wildlife that are connected with the

O&M of developed projects on lands outside DDAs and extends seasonal restrictions for greater

sage-grouse to Notice level operations in Core Area. Appendix I (p. 1535) lists activities subject

to seasonal protections. Alternative D does not apply seasonal protections to these activities

inside DDAs. Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts to special status wildlife

during the sensitive breeding and nesting periods than alternatives A and C and fewer beneficial

impacts than Alternative B, which applies seasonal protections to all lands.

Under Alternative D, lands closed to mineral leasing or subject to NSO are also closed to

geophysical activities. Lands open to leasing are open to geophysical activities and subject

to motorized travel limitations and restrictions on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities

for the area. Closing habitats to geophysical activities would prevent adverse impacts from

cross-country motorized travel and special status wildlife displacement. Restricting geophysical

activities during sensitive times such as breeding, nesting, and winter periods would prevent

abandonment or loss of nests or young, resulting in short-term beneficial impacts. Alternative D

would have more beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C as it closes more acres of special

status wildlife habitat to geophysical activities than alternatives A and C and fewer acres than

Alternative B. Special status species in the Beaver Rim MLP area would benefit from the more

restrictive management applied there an the limitations on surface disturbance although less

than under Alternative B.

Alternative D opens 33 percent fewer acres to phosphate leasing than Alternative A, 38 percent

fewer acres than Alternative C, and 48 percent more acres than Alternative B. Closing lands

to phosphate leasing would beneficially impact special status wildlife by providing long-term

protection of habitat. Alternative D closes 772,952 acres of the greater sage-grouse Core Area and

27,001 acres of LAUs to leasing, which is 88 percent more acres than Alternative A, 88 percent

more acres than Alternative C, and 49 percent fewer acres than Alternative B. Alternative D would

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
968 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

result in greater beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C because Alternative D closes more

special status wildlife habitat to phosphate leasing, and more adverse impacts than Alternative B.

Alternative D opens 1,620,497 surface acres to mineral materials disposal, of which 1,085,273

acres overlap the greater sage-grouse Core Area. Alternative D opens 87 percent more acres

than Alternative B, 36 percent fewer acres than Alternative A, and 39 percent fewer acres than

Alternative C. Under Alternative D, less special status wildlife habitat, including sensitive or

limited habitats, could be lost, modified, or fragmented from development activities. Alternative

D would result in greater beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C and more adverse impacts

than Alternative B.

Lands

Alternative D identifies 8,073 acres of lands available for disposal by sale, exchange, or other

methods, and makes an additional 6,665 acres available with restrictions for post-disposal use.

Alternative D retains fewer acres in public ownership than alternatives B, C, and A. Alternatives

B, C, and A would result in less risk of adverse impacts from the loss or alteration of special status

wildlife habitat in than Alternative D, which makes more lands available for disposal.

Renewable Energy

Alternative D opens 224,289 acres (9 percent of the planning area) to wind-energy development,

and avoids or excludes wind-energy development in the greater sage-grouse Core Area. (While

Core Area is identified as avoided for wind-energy development, until such time as research

identifies the impacts to greater sage-grouse from wind development and mitigation strategies

have been developed, Core Area will be managed as closed to wind energy.) Where wind energy

is developed in the Core Area, facilities will need to meet the location density and cumulative

disturbance thresholds described above under Program Management. during the time that Core

Area would be managed as closed to wind-energy development, Alternative D would result in

very similar risk of adverse impacts to special status wildlife as under Alternative B, although to a

less protective degree. Once research on the impacts to greater sage-grouse have been completed

and mitigation measures identified, Alternative D would result in a greater risk of adverse impacts

to special status wildlife from habitat loss, fragmentation, and avoidance, particularly in sensitive

or limited habitats, than Alternative B, which opens only 26 percent of the planning area to

wind-energy development. However, Alternative D would result in fewer adverse impacts than

alternatives A and C, which open 88 percent and 95 percent of the planning area, respectively.

ROWs and Corridors

Similar to the mineral and other realty management actions discussed above, Alternative D opens

fewer acres to ROWs than alternatives A and C and more acres than Alternative B. Alternative D

excludes 35 percent of the planning area for ROWs and designates 44 percent as ROW avoidance

areas. ROW exclusion areas encompass 284,356 acres of the greater sage-grouse Core Area

and 27,015 acres of LAUs. ROW avoidance areas encompass 1,331,328 acres of the greater

sage-grouse Core Area in the planning area. Opening fewer acres to ROW development would

reduce the risk of habitat loss and fragmentation for special status wildlife and the introduction of

electrocution, predation, and collision hazards. As previously described, surface disturbance from

ROW development would likely result in beneficial impacts to mountain plover and white-tailed

prairie dog because they tend to move into recently disturbed sites. Alternative D would result in

greater beneficial impacts to special status wildlife from excluding or avoiding more lands than

alternatives A and C and more adverse impacts from excluding fewer lands than Alternative B.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 969

Alternative D designates almost as many ROW corridors as Alternative C and would thus

have similar beneficial and adverse impacts to special status species. To the extent that surface

disturbing activities were concentrated in fewer areas, there would be less habitat fragmentation.

However, concentrating disturbance results in larger areas removed as habitat with more

difficulty in reclamation. Since all designated corridors already contain habitat disturbance, some

co-location would be likely to occur in any alternative.

Livestock Grazing Management

Alternative D opens approximately 97 percent of the planning area to grazing, which is almost

the same as all the other alternatives. Alternative D closes 7,566 more acres to grazing than

alternatives A and C and 5,273 fewer acres than Alternative B. Impacts would be almost the

same as described for the other alternatives; however, Alternative D closes additional lands in

the Dubois area, which would eliminate forage competition or reduce impacts to special status

wildlife from livestock management activities. Like alternatives A and C, Alternative D adjusts

livestock grazing use dates on a case-by-case basis on open allotments in the Dubois area to

minimize conflicts with grizzly bears. Alternative D would result in a greater risk of grizzly bear

removal by either relocation or death than Alternative B, which requires livestock grazing use

dates be adjusted in all cases to minimize livestock-grizzly bear conflicts.

Alternative D livestock management actions would disturb approximately 42 acres each year

during construction and/or development of range improvements. Alternative D allows more

range improvement projects than Alternative B but fewer than alternatives A and C. Range

improvement projects could beneficially and adversely impact special status wildlife by providing

water in arid areas and changing where and how intensively habitats are grazed. Adverse impacts

to special status wildlife from the construction of additional fences would be greater under

Alternative D than alternatives A and B, which allow less fence construction, and less than under

Alternative C, which allows more.

Alternative D allows livestock water development projects in greater sage‐grouse nesting habitat

if the project would improve nesting habitat and the development could be designed to be

compatible with greater sage-grouse. Where constructed, water developments could adversely

impact habitat near the developments through concentrated trampling and grazing use. However,

water developments could beneficially impact special status wildlife through improved nesting

cover in other parts of the grazing allotment. Alternative D allows new fences and removes

existing fences on a case-by-case basis. Where new fences are constructed, there could be an

increase in habitat fragmentation and the number of flight hazards across the landscape for some

special status birds such as greater sage-grouse. Fence surveys in the Lander and Rock Springs

Field Office areas have shown that greater sage-grouse can be injured or killed as a result of flying

into fence wires. Similar to the other alternatives, removing fences would beneficially impact

special status wildlife. Alternative D would result in the same or greater beneficial impacts than

alternatives A and C, which do not restrict livestock water development and fences in nesting

habitat. Alternative D would result in more adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse nesting habitat

than Alternative B, which prohibits water developments and new fences except to protect wildlife

or to address human health and safety issues.

Alternative D allows a moderate level of plant utilization when a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy

is in place. As described for Alternative C, greater plant utilization would increase the potential

for decreased hiding cover for special status birds, particularly greater sage-grouse, which could

facilitate nest failure or predation. Alternative B allows the lightest plant utilization levels and

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife
970 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

therefore would provide the most protection from adverse impacts related to overharvesting plants

needed for special status wildlife cover or forage. Like Alternative B, Alternative D prohibits

the placement of salt or mineral supplements within 1⁄2 mile of riparian-wetland areas and within

0.6 mile of greater sage-grouse leks. This action would prevent increased plant utilization

and vegetation trampling in these key habitats, beneficially impacting special status wildlife.

Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C, which prohibit

supplements only within 1⁄4 mile of riparian-wetland areas.

Recreation and Travel Management

Alternative D impacts from recreation management actions would be the same as impacts

under Alternative B, except that SRMAs and distinct ERMAs will constitute fewer acres under

Alternative D. In most cases, management of SRMAs and distinct ERMAs would beneficially

impact special status wildlife by protecting the areas from activities that could degrade habitat.

Management prescriptions that reduce or eliminate surface-disturbing activities (i.e., NSO for

mineral leasing and locatable mineral withdrawals) in the Johnny Behind the Rocks Area and the

Dubois Mill Site would provide long-term protection of special status wildlife habitat. Several

SRMAs are in the Lander Slope ACEC and will be managed according to ACEC prescriptions;

this would also beneficially impact special status wildlife by limiting surface-disturbing activities.

Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C and fewer

beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

Alternative D limits more acres to motorized travel than alternatives A and C and fewer acres than

Alternative B. Alternative D opens 92 percent of the planning area to motorized travel on existing

roads and trails, opens 6 percent to designated roads and trails, and closes 1 percent to motorized

and/or mechanized travel. Closing areas to motorized travel would result in the greatest beneficial

impacts to special status wildlife by eliminating disturbance or displacement from vehicle use and

providing long-term protection from habitat loss and fragmentation. Most of the areas closed to

motorized travel are open to mechanized travel. Areas open to mechanized travel would result

in slightly fewer beneficial impacts than areas closed to all travel. Compared to alternatives A

and C, the number of acres subject to seasonal travel limitations increases under Alternative D.

Seasonal travel limitations would protect special status wildlife during sensitive winter, breeding,

and birthing/nesting times. Overall recreation and travel management actions under Alternative D

would result in fewer adverse impacts to special status wildlife than alternatives A and C and

fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B.

4.4.9.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative D designates eight ACECs totaling 243,836 acres (10 percent of the planning area),

which is 51 percent more acres than Alternative A, 100 percent more acres than Alternative

C, and 84 percent fewer acres than Alternative B. ACEC management would result in direct

beneficial impacts to special status wildlife in the long term because it would protect the areas

from habitat loss or fragmentation by (1) closing lands to mineral leasing, (2) extending

existing or pursuing new locatable mineral entry withdrawals, (3) closing or limiting motorized

vehicle use, (4) excluding major utility systems, ROWs, and wind-energy development, and

(5) prohibiting other surface-disturbing activities not compatible with retaining or enhancing

the areas' values. Alternative D does not designate the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater

Sage-Grouse ACEC, but does establish a small portion in this same area as the Twin Creek

ACEC (35,102 acres). Alternative D provides limits on all types of mineral development in the

Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area, some of which is designated an ACEC, and proposes the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 971

withdrawal of this area from locatable mineral development. This area would be managed for

long-term protection of many species and resources, including special status species, and provides

opportunities for continued greater sage-grouse research that could benefit the species statewide,

such as identifying appropriate mitigation measures related to energy development. Management

prescriptions are more restrictive than in other parts of Core Area to allow population trend

studies and research to be conducted without the influence of other permitted activities. These

management actions would protect habitat loss and the area's value as a reference area for

greater sage-grouse and also benefit all other sagebrush-obligate special status wildlife species.

Management prescriptions for the area would result in slightly fewer beneficial impacts than

management under Alternative B and more beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C.

The East Fork and Green Mountain ACECs are larger under Alternative D than under Alternative

A, increasing the amount of special status wildlife habitat covered by ACEC prescriptions.

Alternative D does not designate the Dubois Badlands area as an ACEC and incorporates the

200 non-contiguous acres to the east of the badlands into the East Fork ACEC. This would not

result in additional adverse impacts to special status wildlife because management under BLM

Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas would still protect their habitat in the

Dubois Badlands WSA. Alternative D management of mineral and realty actions in the Whiskey

Mountain and East Fork ACECs is the same as management under alternatives A and B (the most

restrictive possible) and would provide the greatest protection to special status wildlife habitat.

Under Alternative D, the Beaver Rim, Lander Slope, and Red Canyon ACECs are the same

sizes as under Alternative A, but Alternative D includes slightly more restrictive prescriptions

regarding surfacing-disturbing activities, which would beneficially impact special status wildlife.

Alternative D increases protections along NHTs and the CDNST in the NTMC over Alternative

A except for the part of the CDNST in the Crooks Gap area. Additional constraints for

surface-disturbing activities to protect the integrity and setting of the trails would beneficially

impact special status wildlife habitat. Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts to

special status wildlife habitat from trail protection than alternatives A and C, and fewer beneficial

impacts than Alternative B.

Alternative D recommends NWSRS-eligible segments on Warm Springs Creek Segment 1,

Baldwin Creek, and Sweetwater River as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS and manages those

segments in accordance with the Lander Slope ACEC and Sweetwater Canyon WSA prescriptions

respectively, which constrain mineral and realty developments. Alternative D increases the level

of protection for surface-disturbing activities over Alternative A because Alternative D increases

protections in the Lander Slope ACEC and Sweetwater Canyon WSA. Alternative D would result

in greater beneficial impacts than Alternative C and more adverse impacts than Alternative B.

Overall, Alternative D management actions for special designation areas would result in more

beneficial impacts to special status wildlife than alternatives A and C and fewer beneficial impacts

than Alternative B.

4.4.10. Wild Horses

This section describes potential impacts to wild horses from management of other resources

and resource uses. The BLM manages wild horses for self‐sustaining populations of healthy,

free‐roaming animals in balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat.

Management of wild horses is performed consistent with the Wild Free Roaming Horses

and Burros Act of 1971, multiple use objectives in the FLPMA, in conformance with the

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses
972 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, and in compliance with relevant court orders and

agreements, including the Consent Decree (August 2003). Adverse impacts to wild horses

include management actions that impair the ability of native vegetation to produce forage, the

availability of water, or other habitat components necessary to maintain the health of horses and

the appropriate management levels in HMAs. Adverse impacts also result from management

actions that impair wild horses' free-roaming behavior. Beneficial impacts to wild horses result

from management that increases or improves vegetative health and amounts of forage and from

management actions that support the long-term health, genetic viability, and free movement of

wild horses in the HMAs.

4.4.10.1. Summary of Impacts

Primary adverse impacts to wild horses would result from management that reduces forage for

and the health and free-roaming nature of wild horses. Alternative B would result in the greatest

beneficial impact to wild horses due to its management emphasis on resource protection, which

would increase forage and support the general free-roaming nature of wild horses. Alternatives

A and C would result in similar types of impacts to wild horses, but Alternative C would result

in more adverse impacts to wild horses than Alternative A, especially in the short term. Under

all alternatives, wild-horse populations could be brought into balance with available habitat and

resources needed to sustain genetically viable herds. Public encounters with wild horses would be

the greatest under alternatives B and C because these alternatives increase opportunities for public

viewing and opportunities for encounters associated with recreation.

4.4.10.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● The number of wild horses will increase approximately 15 to 20 percent annually and herd

numbers will be maintained by periodic removals. Natural reproduction and recruitment rates

will continue to exceed natural mortality from predation, disease, and other factors. Wild

horse numbers managed within the appropriate management level will not adversely will not

adversely impact soil, water, or vegetation in a manner that would contribute to not meeting

the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

● Wild-horse removals (gathers) will occur approximately every 3 to 5 years in each HMA.

● Maintenance of wild horse populations at appropriate management levels in existing HMAs

will be accomplished through selective removal and application of other population control

practices (i.e., fertility control).

● Wild-horse gathers will mostly use existing trap locations. Approximately 10 acres have been

disturbed from the development of existing traps. It will be necessary to use new trap sites

and disturb an additional 10 acres during the planning period.

● Public attitudes toward wild-horse protection and adoption will remain similar to attitudes

over the past 10 to 20 years.

● Levels of wildlife will continue at the same rate as over the last 10 years.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 973

4.4.10.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.4.10.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The types of impacts to wild horses under all alternatives would be similar; however, the

extent and intensity of impacts would vary by alternative. Therefore, impacts to wild horses

from soils and water management, surface-disturbing activities, minerals development, ROW

development, motorized vehicle use, recreation, livestock grazing, special designations, fire and

fuels management, wildlife use, and proactive management actions are described for individual

alternatives.

Management in accordance with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would result

in long-term beneficial impacts to wild horses. Conformance with the Standards for Healthy

Rangelands (whether for soils, water, or vegetation) could result in short-term adverse impacts

to wild horses if wild horses are determined to be a cause of not meeting the Standards for

Healthy Rangelands.

Fencing to improve livestock grazing distribution and implement grazing systems would

adversely impact the movement of wild horses and reduce their genetic viability and overall

free-roaming nature. Water developments could improve the distribution of wild horses in

each HMA, but also could draw wild horses into areas outside the current HMA boundaries.

Conformance with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands in upland areas would result

in improved plant vigor, production, and diversity of species available as forage. This would

provide consistent year-round forage and improve the year-round body condition of wild horses,

which would have a beneficial impact on wild horses.

Management that decreases adverse impacts to water quality, watersheds, and soils, such as

avoiding or prohibiting surface disturbance near water or on slopes, maintaining watershed

improvement projects, and using BMPs to reduce runoff, soil erosion, and sediment yield to retain

water on landscapes would result in long-term beneficial impacts to wild horses. Management

of resources that enhance habitat and forage production contribute to habitat health and the

overall health of horses.

All alternatives maintain herd numbers within the same range; therefore, herd numbers are not

analyzed here. Maintaining the appropriate management levels of wild horses in the North Lander

Complex of HMAs (Conant Creek, Muskrat Basin, Rock Creek Mountain, and Dishpan Butte)

and the Lander Field Office portion of the Red Desert Complex (Green Mountain, Crooks

Mountain, and Antelope Hills) would result in long-term beneficial impacts to wild horses. This

provides for the maintenance of genetic viability of wild horses in the two complexes. Not

restricting the movement of herds in the HMAs would further increase the genetic viability of

wild-horse populations in HMAs. Employing selective removal criteria in accordance with

current national policies during periodic gathers to increase desired genetic characteristics and

avoid genetic depression would result in long-term beneficial impacts to wild horses by increasing

long-term health and genetic viability.

HMAs are the same under all alternatives, therefore, this section does not address impacts

to HMAs.

Considering the use of natural and artificial population control measures, as needed, to maintain

the populations of wild horses within the established appropriate management levels would result

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses
974 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

in long-term beneficial impacts to wild horses by improving health of populations and facilitating

effective strategies for the management of wild horses and their habitat.

Basing future adjustments in forage allocations in the HMAs on monitoring and multiple-use

considerations through a revision of the HMA plan would result in long-term beneficial impacts

to wild horses. The process involved in adjusting forage allocations through the revision of

HMA plans would provide appropriate review of herd objectives and conditions before forage

allocations are made.

The use of certified weed-free forage supplements would beneficially impact wild horses by

decreasing the potential for INNS establishment and spread that would compete with native

vegetation and lead to losses or changes in available forage. The use of forage supplements

also would reduce competition between wild horses and other wildlife for food sources during

droughts.

Management of special designations within HMAs could beneficially impact wild horses by

limiting adverse impacts to resources (e.g., soil, water, and vegetation) that would impact wild

horses. All alternatives manage wild horses in the North Lander Complex and Red Desert

Complex of HMAs.

Management of WSAs would result in the same impacts to wild horses under all alternatives.

There are 56 acres of the Sweetwater WSA in the Antelope Hills HMA. Generally, WSA

management beneficially impacts wild horses. However, the acreage of protection for horses is

negligible.

The Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 requires that protection of a natural ecological balance,

including endangered and all other wildlife species, be a consideration when making wild-horse

management decisions. Accordingly, management that makes the listing of any species under

the ESA more likely would result in an adverse impact to wild horses because it may require a

reduction in wild-horse numbers to limit their adverse impacts to the endangered species. Under

all alternatives, HMAs include suitable habitat for greater sage-grouse.

4.4.10.3.2. Alternative A

4.4.10.3.2.1. Program Management

Providing opportunities for the public to view wild horses in the various HMAs could adversely

and beneficially impact wild horses. Increased human presence could adversely impact wild

horses by acclimating horses to human presence and reducing their wild, free-roaming nature. If

human activity lasts long enough, wild horses might move outside the existing HMAs. Increased

foal mortality due to foal abandonments and increased risk of injuries to humans could result

as wild-horse and human interactions continue to increase. However, public awareness could

increase adoptions and support for the wild-horse program. Increased fencing demands in the

HMAs for livestock management and protection of riparian-wetland values would continue to

threaten the wild and free-roaming character of wild horses. The BLM would evaluate all fences

to determine impacts to wild horses in the HMAs.

4.4.10.3.2.2. Resources

Soil and Water

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 975

Soil and water management indirectly impacts wild horses because they are causal factors for

vegetation health. As described in the Soil section of this chapter, soil is protected from erosion

through slope and surface disturbance limitations. Alternative A closes 30,385 acres of HMAs

to surface disturbance. Water quality and riparian-wetland health are protected by prohibiting

surface disturbance on 21,262 acres of HMAs.

Forests, Forest Products, Fire and Fuels

Alternative A provides for the development of forest products in the Green Mountain area. If

demand supported this use, it would result in a major beneficial impact to wild horses in the

Green Mountain HMA by creating additional forage (once an over story of trees are removed,

the site becomes dominated by various grass species until trees revegetate the site) over a period

that would provide high-quality habitat for wild horses. This would result in short-term adverse

impacts during logging or mechanical treatment operations because horses would be displaced.

However, there is no anticipated demand for commercial timber; this would reduce the potential

for beneficial impacts, which would not vary substantially among the alternatives.

Full suppression in fire and fuels management would both adversely and beneficially impact wild

horses. Management that increases the occurrence and spread of wildland fires in the short term,

such as reduced restrictions on fire suppression activities, would result in temporary displacement

of wild horses and short-term reductions in available forage. However, fires of the appropriate

intensity improve forage production in the long term and result in vegetative communities with

increased diversity, cover, and age class. Recovery of burned areas could adversely impact wild

horses. Burned areas might also require temporary fencing during stabilization and rehabilitation,

which could temporarily inhibit the movement of wild horses. Because impacts from fences

would be short-term, these impacts are not expected to affect the long-term genetic variability

of wild horses.

Fire suppression activities, such as firebreaks and staging areas for suppression, also would result

in short-term loss of forage. These impacts would be expected to be minor considering the

amount of suppression activities and localized disturbance compared to the size of the planning

area and HMAs. Any fire suppression activities in or near HMAs would increase adverse impacts

to wild horses.

Mechanical fuels treatments, prescribed fire, and other fuels reduction activities would result in

short- and long-term adverse impacts to wild horses. In the short term, fuels reduction could

temporarily displace wild horses from localized areas. In the long term, fuels reduction activities

that help return fire to its natural role in the ecosystem would result in improved forage production

and vegetative diversity, which would beneficially impact wild horses. Under Alternative A, there

would be long-term beneficial impacts from prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments.

However, under Alternative A, the BLM would be more likely to construct range improvement

projects and would only occasionally perform vegetative treatments; this would adversely impact

wild horses, which benefit from vegetative treatments in the long term.

Aggressive initial attack and full suppression of all natural or human-caused wildfire would

minimize short-term impacts to wild-horse habitat and forage. Although prescribed fire could

impact habitat and forage availability over the short term, pending recovery of vegetation from

the impacts of direct, over the long term, prescribed fire maintains vegetative productivity and

diversity. This would retain the viability of wild-horse herds, where it does not conflict with

livestock grazing, and continue the capability to meet established herd numbers.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses
976 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Grasslands and Shrublands

Alternative A manages vegetation in accordance with the NRCS ecological site guides. Meeting

identified vegetative goals could adversely impact wild horses if the desired plant community

does not contain enough plant diversity or contains improper types of vegetation to support wild

horses. Vegetative and fuels treatments to enhance forage production would result in short-term

adverse impacts to wild horses because forage would not be available while the areas become

established in HMAs. There would be long-term beneficial impacts to wild horses because more

high-quality forage would be available in the HMAs. This would provide for better long-term

health of the wild horses.

INNS establishment and spread left untreated outcompetes native vegetation and grasses and

could reduce available forage for wild horses. This creates more competition between livestock

and wildlife for available forage. INNS treatments and reductions could displace wild horses and

reduce forage in the short term, but would result in long-term beneficial impacts because it would

reduce INNS competition with native vegetation and increase available forage for wild horses.

Riparian-Wetlands

Riparian-wetlands management under Alternative A could adversely impact wild horses. If water

is not available, wild horses could seek water outside HMAs, which would result in new horse

populations outside the HMAs. Dropping water tables created by unsuitable riparian-wetlands

and fencing to improve riparian-wetland systems can cause water to be unavailable.

Wildlife

Consideration of wildlife big game herd objectives in allocation of forage could be adverse to

supporting wild horse numbers. This would be especially true where the big game population is

over the objective. Management to improve wildlife habitat would result in overall beneficial

impacts to wild horses by creating diverse, complex vegetative communities with improved

forage in riparian-wetland, grass, and shrub communities. Alternative A allows fences on a

case-by-case basis in big game migration corridors, which, when authorized, would be likely to

result in adverse impacts to wild horses if the fences are installed within the boundaries of HMAs.

Special Status Species

Management of special status plant and animal species in HMAs could limit opportunities for

enhancement of wild-horse populations. Some proposed actions for greater sage-grouse also

would limit these opportunities. Establishment of forage utilization limits in greater sage-grouse

nesting areas could require reductions in wild-horse numbers in HMAs. See the Special

Status Species sections of this chapter for additional analysis. To protect special status plants,

wild-horse gathering or exclusion could be required on a site-specific basis; however, this would

not adversely impact the wild-horse program because other gather locations are available.

Management of special status species that improves habitat and reduces fences would beneficially

impact wild-horse habitat.

4.4.10.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Locatable Minerals

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 977

Locatable mineral activities under Alternative A would result in adverse impacts to wild horses by

increasing surface disturbance and increasing human presence. Alternative A does not withdraw

land in HMAs from locatable mineral activities. Approximately 35,765 acres of in HMAs have

potential for bentonite or uranium, the most likely types of locatable minerals to be explored

or developed. Bentonite and uranium mining activities would adversely impact wild horses

through removal of vegetation until it can be reclaimed, through human presence, fragmentation

of habitat, and the increased likelihood of fences that would adversely impact the wild and

free-roaming character of the wild horses. Fences also could block migration routes to winter

ranges, depending on fence locations. Forage reductions would adverse impact wild horses

by increasing competition with livestock and other wildlife. Removing vegetation also would

encourage INNS establishment and spread.

Other Minerals

Alternative A opens all of the planning area HMAs to fluid mineral leasing. Alternative A

closes small areas of riparian-wetlands and NHTs to solid mineral leasing and mineral materials

disposals. Adverse impacts to wild horses from leasable minerals would be the same as described

for locatable minerals.

Renewable Energy

Wind-energy development under Alternative A would result in direct adverse impacts to wild

horses. Alternative A opens most HMAs to wind-energy development and 125,098 acres in

HMAs have high potential for wind energy. Removing vegetation would result in a direct loss

of available forage and result in habitat fragmentation through the development of new roads

and fences. New fencing would deteriorate the wild, free-roaming character of wild-horses by

reducing the amount of area in which they move and could block migration routes to winter

ranges, depending on the locations of new fences. Reductions in forage would adversely impact

wild horses by increasing competition with livestock and other wildlife. Removing vegetation

also would encourage INNS establishment and spread. Wild horses stay away from the activities

and movements associated with wind turbines. Management in areas in HMAs where this activity

is authorized would be sharply curtailed, with no ability to inventory or round up horses using

rotary-type aircraft. On a long-term basis, it might not be possible to control herd numbers

in areas where wind turbines are developed. The southern HMAs have high potential for

wind-energy development, including some areas along Beaver Rim.

ROWs and Corridors

Surface disturbance results in the removal of vegetation, which directly reduces the available

forage for wild horses and other grazing animals. Surface disturbance and clearing of vegetation

without appropriate reclamation or rehabilitation can also lead to the establishment and spread

of INNS, which also could reduce forage. Forage reductions adversely impact wild horses by

increasing competition between livestock and other wildlife. Alternative A does not designate

corridors and allows ROWs on a case-by-case basis. Alternative A does not avoid or exclude

acres of HMAs to ROWs.

Trails and Travel Management

Management of trails and travel results in both short- and long-term adverse impacts to wild

horses. Alternative A does not increase or decrease motorized travel in HMAs and does not

reduce duplicative roads. Increased development of other resource uses would increase traffic on

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses
978 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

existing roads, but this would not be the result of travel management. Areas with seasonal travel

limitations, such as in the Green Mountain area, reduce wild horse human interactions and would

reduce adverse impacts to wild horses during winter when they are most vulnerable. Alternative

A places seasonal travel limitations on 64 percent of the Green Mountain HMA.

Alternative A allows over-snow vehicles (snow machines) to run on existing roads and trails

and cross-country in HMAs without any requirements for minimum snow depth. Motorized

over-snow vehicles stress wild horses during winter and would increase the potential for

wild-horse and human interactions, especially in areas near human population centers. This also

would increase chances for wild horses to be harassed during critical winter months when they

are already stressed by severe cold.

Livestock Grazing Management

Livestock grazing management under Alternative A would adversely and beneficially impact

wild horses. Impacts to wild horses from livestock grazing depend on the location, timing,

intensity, duration, and frequency of grazing. Livestock grazing management that results in the

maintenance or improvement of range conditions as directed by the Wyoming Standards for

Healthy Rangelands would beneficially impact wild horses, depending on how it is achieved.

Range improvements associated with livestock grazing, such as springs, wells, and reservoirs, in

HMAs would only result in theoretical beneficial impacts to wild horses because, although these

range improvements would increase the availability of water, they would increase livestock use of

upland vegetation. Increasing wild horse numbers show that wild horses currently have adequate

water for their needs. Having more water developments but less forage would result in more of an

adverse impact than a beneficial impact. Over the life of the plan, 416 acres would be disturbed

from the development of spring, reservoir and well developments under Alternative A.

Alternative A would further adversely impact wild horses through the construction of fences for

range improvements; fences would prevent herd movement and access to resources, and increase

loss of vegetation along fence lines where livestock trail. Livestock grazing also would result in

competition with wild horses for forage, water, and habitat; this would adversely impact wild

horses, including where range improvement projects increase the use of upland vegetation in new

areas. Alternative A manages all HMAs as open to livestock grazing. Drought conditions can

exacerbate conflicts between wild-horse and livestock management related to water and forage

availability on rangelands in HMAs. Under Alternative A, a total of 12,439 acres of surface

disturbance is projected to take place over the planning period, including 355 miles of fences. It

is not possible to determine how much of that activity would occur in HMAs; however, 41,333

acres in HMAs are not within 2 miles of a water development, which would make it likely that

additional water developments and fences would be built in HMAs.

Alternative A authorizes fencing to promote healthy riparian-wetland areas. The use of permanent

riparian-wetland fencing would result in short- and long-term adverse impact to wild horses

by making the forage and water in the riparian-wetland unavailable. The use of temporary

riparian-wetland fencing would result in a short-term adverse impacts to wild horses for the period

the fence is in place. Fencing also could block migration corridors in the HMAs and prevent

wild horses from moving freely to winter ranges. There would be long-term beneficial impacts

to wild horses because improvements in riparian-wetland areas provide long-term, high-quality

forage and water that would be available to wild horses. However, fencing of riparian-wetland

systems could cause wild horses to seek water outside of HMAs, which would result in new

horse populations outside HMAs.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 979

Livestock grazing management under Alternative A could modify wild-horse distribution and

their free-roaming nature, at least in the short term. As resource conditions improve, authorized

active livestock grazing could increase without any adverse impact to wild-horse numbers.

However, when grazing creates adverse impacts to resource values that cannot be rectified by

changing livestock management, site-specific reductions in wild-horse numbers could occur.

During drought conditions, the need to reduce grazing use (wild horse and livestock) could be

compounded. Construction of additional fences would not beneficially impact wild horses, even

though impacts would be minimized or mitigated through project layout and design. Fences could

limit access to historic range and water, and restrict the free-roaming nature of wild horses.

Recreation

The Alternative A emphasis on increasing recreational uses, such as commercial opportunities

and dispersed recreation, would adversely impact most HMAs. Recreation uses increase visitor

numbers, motorized vehicles, and noise, thereby triggering an instinctive behavioral change in

wild horses to avoid encounters with humans. Wild horses might slowly adapt to some of this

increased use, but maximizing recreational use could create continued or prolonged disturbances.

This would reduce or eliminate wild-horse use in a portion of an HMA, which would essentially

decrease habitat acreage. Wild horses would concentrate in a smaller, more remote section of the

HMA, increasing competition with wildlife and livestock for available forage and space, which

could result in reductions in appropriate management levels. Additional recreation use also

would increase the potential for displacement of wild horses to areas outside designated HMA

boundaries, which would create the need for removal. Recreation management under Alternative

A would result in localized short-term impacts to wild horses.

4.4.10.3.2.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative A, the Green Mountain ACEC is the only ACEC that overlaps an HMA. The

only prescription for ACEC management is that mining and exploration activities of all sizes (not

just those that would disturb more than 5 acres) require Plans of Operation. The BLM can use

Plans of Operation as a tool to avoid undue or unnecessary degradation to the land, which would

result in a minor beneficial impact to wild horses in the HMA.

4.4.10.3.3. Alternative B

4.4.10.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B wild horse management focuses on maintenance of healthy, viable herds and

habitat and emphasizes conservation of physical, biological, heritage, and visual resources with

constraints on resource uses. Alternative B establishes scenic loops in HMAs. Fencing and

range improvements will be minimized under this alternative. Under this alternative, some water

developments that could help wild-horse distribution in the HMAs and would not be constructed.

Alternative B would result in long-term beneficial impacts to wild horses by increasing the

availability of and ensuring the wild, free-roaming character of wild horses. This free movement

also would improve the genetic viability of the wild horses and reduce the possibility of injuries

and death associated with fencing. Providing opportunities for wild horse viewing in the HMAs

would result in impacts the same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses
980 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Compared to other alternatives, management actions under Alternative B would result in the most

direct and indirect beneficial impacts to wild horses and their habitat as those actions conserve the

greatest land area for physical, biological, and heritage resources, and are the most restrictive to

motorized vehicle use and mineral development.

4.4.10.3.3.2. Resources

Soil and Water

In general, management under Alternative B emphasizes the conservation and protection of soil

and water and limits surface disturbance the most of any alternative, which would improve

forage and the health of wild horses (see the Soil, Water, and Vegetation – Grasslands and

Shrubland Communities sections of this chapter). Therefore, management of under Alternative B

would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to wild horses compared to the other alternatives.

However, Alternative B would result in adverse impacts to wild horses the same as Alternative A.

Forests, Forest Products, Fire and Fuels

Alternative B forest management practices (i.e., no clear-cutting) would create less new available

forage (i.e., no clear-cutting), but this beneficial impact to the Green Mountain HMA would

be limited in effect because of low demand for forest products. However, there will be more

mechanical treatments for fuels and prescribed fires under Alternative B because the alternative

would use more funds for non-infrastructure range improvements. This would result in a

short-term adverse impact because it would reduce the potential disturbance to and displacement

of wild horses; however, it would result in a long-term beneficial impact by improving vegetative

condition and reducing the potential for larger, more intense fires that would result in slower

rehabilitation and ultimately a greater loss of forage. This management also could require

emergency roundups if large areas burn and leave very little forage for wild horses. Alternative B

would result in fewer beneficial impacts to wild horses from fire suppression activities because

fire would resume its natural role in the ecosystem. This management would result in more

adverse impacts to wild horses, at least in the short term, and could result in no beneficial impacts

to wild horses during the planning period.

Grasslands and Shrublands

In general, management under Alternative B emphasizes the conservation and protection

of resources (e.g., vegetation), which should improve forage and the health of wild horses.

Therefore, management of resources under Alternative B would result in the greatest beneficial

impacts to wild horses compared to the other alternatives.

Invasive Species

Alternative B includes the most aggressive treatment for INNS. There could be a short-term

adverse impact to wild horses because potentially larger areas in HMAs would be treated and

the treated areas might require a rest period. The long-term beneficial impact of this aggressive

treatment would be a healthy, diverse vegetative community free of INNS and more forage

available to wild horses.

Riparian-Wetlands

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 981

In general, management under Alternative B emphasizes the conservation and protection of

resources such as riparian-wetlands, which would improve forage and the health of wild horses.

Therefore, management of resources under Alternative B would result in the greatest beneficial

impacts to wild horses compared to the other alternatives. Alternative B precludes fencing as part

of livestock allotment management unless there would be no impacts to resources. Therefore,

improvement in riparian-wetlands might be achieved more slowly than under Alternative A,

which authorizes riparian-wetland fences. Fencing riparian-wetland areas to exclude grazing

animals is the fastest method to achieve riparian-wetland health, but it also removes the

riparian-wetlands from available wild horse forage, an adverse impact to wild horses.

Wildlife

In general, management under Alternative B emphasizes the conservation and protection of

resources (e.g., wildlife), which would improve forage and the health of wild horses. Therefore,

management of resources under Alternative B would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to

wild horses compared to the other alternatives. Under Alternative B, if there are modifications

needed to accommodate forage allocations for wildlife, livestock grazing AUMs would be

reduced as part of the natural systems management discussed below for livestock grazing.

Special Status Species

Management of special status species under Alternative B would result in impacts similar to

Alternative A, although to a much greater degree in the case of greater sage-grouse. Under

Alternative B, 70,078 HMA acres are outside the greater sage-grouse Core Area and would not be

impacted by greater sage-grouse protections. Alternative B greater sage-grouse protections close

517,280 acres of HMAs to surface disturbance, range improvement projects, and wind-energy

development. There are strict limits on density and number of developments. Alternative B would

be more likely than Alternative A to prevent greater sage-grouse listing under the ESA, which

would result in direct and indirect beneficial impacts to wild horses.

4.4.10.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Locatable Minerals

Alternative B withdraws more than 50 percent of HMAs from locatable mineral entry.

Alternative B would result in the same types of adverse impacts to wild horses as Alternative

A. However, because Alternative B opens fewer acres for development, it would result in the

least surface disturbance (and related habitat fragmentation, including fences) compared to the

other alternatives, and would therefore result in the fewest adverse impacts to wild horses from

locatable minerals management.

Leasable and Salable Minerals

Alternative B management of leasable and salable minerals, including oil and gas, would result

in the beneficial impacts to wild horses would be the same for locatable minerals. Alternative

B opens fewer acres to these mineral activities and would therefore involve the least surface

disturbance and related habitat fragmentation and human contact compared to the other

alternatives. Alternative B would result in the fewest adverse impacts to wild horses from leasable

and salable minerals management.

Renewable Energy

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses
982 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative B excludes 100 percent of HMAs with high wind potential from wind-energy

development. This management would be most beneficial to the Green Mountain and Red Desert

HMAs. The North Lander Complex below Beaver Rim has relatively low wind-energy potential,

whereas above the Beaver Rim the potential is high. The Red Desert Complex of HMAs also has

high wind-energy potential in the Green Mountain, Crooks Mountain, and Antelope Hills HMAs.

ROWs and Corridors

Alternative B affords the most protection for wild horses by limiting ROWs to existing corridors.

However, existing corridors bisect the Muskrat Basin HMA and intersect a very small portion of

the Green Mountain HMA. Alternative B ROW and corridor management through the Muskrat

Basin HMA would result in adverse impacts the same as described for ROW and corridor

management under Alternative A. Alternative B would result in more beneficial impacts than

Alternative A because Alternative B excludes the balance of the HMAs from ROWs; Alternative

A allows them on a case-by-case basis.

Trails and Travel Management

Management of trails and travel under Alternative B would result in impacts similar to those

under Alternative A, except regarding over-snow vehicles. Alternative A does not close HMAs to

motorized vehicle traffic. Alternative B limits over-snow travel to when at least 12 inches of snow

are on the ground; this would result in a major beneficial impact to wild horses because it limits

the types of stresses and harassment that could occur under Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Management

Alternative B livestock management would result in much more beneficial impact to wild horses

than Alternative A. Under Alternative B, almost no spring and reservoir developments associated

with livestock grazing are constructed compared to the continued development of projects under

Alternative A. However, increasing herd numbers suggest that additional water sources are not

needed for wild horses and that spreading livestock use to new areas and the loss of forage

associated with water developments and the surrounding area where animals concentrate, would

result in adverse impacts to vegetation. Therefore, Alternative B management of not building

more water developments would result in at least a neutral impact and likely a beneficial impact

to wild horses.

In other respects, Alternative B livestock grazing management would result in more beneficial

impacts to wild horses. Establishing livestock use in allotments that would not exceed light

utilization essentially means much less livestock use. Additional sustained yield forage for wild

horses and wildlife would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses by increasing forage and

decreasing the potential for competition with livestock and other wildlife. Not introducing

additional infrastructure in HMAs would beneficially impact wild horses because no new fences

(and perhaps less fencing if some fences are removed as contemplated under Alternative B) would

ensure that the wild, free-roaming character of wild horses would be maintained.

Recreation

Impacts from recreation management under Alternative B would be similar to impacts under

Alternative A. Alternative B establishes a number of recreation management areas, including

the CDNST Destination SRMA and the National Trails Undeveloped SRMA. Recreation

management stops the movement toward a more industrial setting and trends toward a more

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 983

primitive setting. While it is possible that more focused recreation management would increase

visitation, recreation management would limit adverse impacts to wild-horse habitat.

4.4.10.3.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative B manages 64 percent of HMAs with ACEC prescriptions that would beneficially

impact wild horses. The most direct beneficial impact would be that Alternative B increases the

size of the Green Mountain ACEC, putting an additional 10,248 acres of HMA in the ACEC.

ACEC management under Alternative B limits surface disturbance, mineral actions, ROWs,

habitat fragmentation, and other human presence, which would result in direct beneficial impacts

to wild horses by improving vegetation. While Alternative B in general limits range improvement

projects, it allows none in ACECs.

4.4.10.3.4. Alternative C

4.4.10.3.4.1. Program Management

Overall, the Alternative C expansion of infrastructure to support managed grazing would be

anticipated to result in smaller populations of wild horses that would not be able to maintain

genetic viability with the anticipated fencing and potential blockage of migration routes.

Site-specific adverse impacts could result from conflict with emphasizing livestock production

and providing for motorized recreational opportunities. In addition, Alternative C allows fluid

mineral development on 100 percent of HMAs. Alternative C prohibits other surface disturbance,

such as mineral materials disposals and solid leasable minerals activities, only in NLCS units, and

within 1⁄4 mile of greater sage-grouse leks and riparian-wetland areas. This would result in many

more adverse impacts to vegetation and habitat than Alternative B.

Wild horses could slowly adapt to the increased disturbances and competition with livestock, but

with confined living space, their tolerance threshold might be exceeded. Wild horses might be

concentrated into smaller use areas, and increased competition for forage and water between

consumptive species would occur. Wild horses could be forced outside the identified HMA and

would have to be gathered more frequently and returned or removed. However, to comply with

the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971, limitations might be placed on other uses to ensure viable

populations in HMAs. Emphasis on construction of exclusion fencing to protect riparian-wetlands

and other resource values would result in long-term adverse impacts to the free-roaming nature of

wild horses. The objectives might not be met with viable populations of wild horses maintained

in all HMAs. In some cases, primarily in smaller HMAs with fewer animals identified, conflicts

with objectives to emphasize livestock production would be great. Similarly, conflicts with

emphasizing recreational opportunities would confine horses to more restricted portions of each

HMA. The appropriate management level might need to be reduced in some HMAs over the

long term to meet all management objectives.

General management under Alternative C would result in the same level of wild-horse viewing

as Alternative A, but less than Alternative B.

Alternative C does not include seasonal restrictions on surface-disturbing or disruptive activities

in HMAs. This would result in long-term adverse impacts to wild horses by increasing the

potential for disturbance during sensitive times of the year; which could reduce forage and overall

health of horses in the HMAs. Allowing Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) in HMAs would

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses
984 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

result in impacts similar to those Alternative A, although to a higher degree because more SRPs

would be issued under Alternative C.

Overall, the ability to manage for the protection of wild horses would be least under Alternative C.

4.4.10.3.4.2. Resources

Soil

Alternative C management of soil resources is the same as or slightly less restrictive than under

Alternative A; therefore, impacts under Alternative C would be the same as under Alternative A.

Water

Many Alternative C management actions for water resources are the same as those under

Alternative A. However, allowing permanent facilities in riparian-wetlands would result in a

permanent long-term loss of forage if these kinds of activities were authorized in HMAs.

Forests, Forest Products, Fire and Fuel

Alternative C creates the most additional forage from clear-cutting and other silviculture practices

in the Green Mountain HMA. There are no size limitations on cuts under this alternative. This

would beneficially impact wild horses by providing high-quality forage over the long term due

to the potential limited for forest products Full fire suppression and unlimited use of heavy

equipment would result in adverse impacts by suppressing natural fire regimes and holding

some range sites in ecological states that might not be as productive for forage. Use of heavy

equipment would take some areas out of production for a short period and would produce a seed

bed conducive to INNS invasion. Many of the management actions under Alternative C would be

the same as management actions under Alternative A and would result in the same impacts.

Grasslands and Shrublands

Alternative C maximizes vegetative forage production for each range site and uses soil and

vegetative treatments in all cases. Maximizing forage production through aggressive vegetative

treatments would help reduce competition between foraging animals. Alternative C will have

fewer funds available for vegetative treatments than alternatives A and B because Alternative C

develops more range infrastructure.

Invasive Species

Alternative C maximizes surface disturbance, including roads and ROWs, to support increased

resource use. This management is the highest vector for the introduction of INNS and would

result in more indirect adverse impacts to wild horses through more INNS damage of vegetation.

Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impacts to wild horses from INNS.

Riparian-Wetlands

Maximizing range improvements to meet PFC would adversely impact wild horses because

riparian-wetland areas would likely be fenced. Wild horses would not be able to access these

areas, which would reduce forage and water available to wild horses. Horses would be compelled

to use alternative water sources that tend to be smaller, such as stock tanks and wells. This would

increase competition between livestock and wild horses for limited watering space because too

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 985

many cattle could use limited water and restrict horse access. Conversely, some horses have been

known to chase cattle away from water sources such as stock tanks. Furthermore, if water is

limited, wild horses might leave the HMA in search of new areas in which to forage and water,

potentially increasing wild-horse numbers outside the HMA and adversely affecting vegetation in

new areas. Additional gathers might be needed to remove horses from outside HMAs, which

would be an added expense not only in dollars, but time and management of the animals.

A potential beneficial impact to wild horses would be the availability of long-term high-quality

forage and water as riparian-wetland areas approach PFC, but only if the fencing is removed,

or, in some cases riparian-wetland areas could provide more water as improvement is achieved.

During the non-grazing and non-growing season of some riparian-wetland pastures, horses would

be allowed to graze these areas without adversely affecting vegetation during the dormant season.

Wildlife

Giving priority to livestock forage needs when allocating forage resource needs would result in

adverse impacts to wild horses. Maximizing livestock forage needs might require the adjustment

of appropriate management levels in HMAs downward to accommodate increased livestock

use. In turn, this would reduce the genetic variability in several of the HMAs. In general,

Alternative C wildlife management would result in more adverse impacts to wild horses because

it is less protective of wildlife and therefore wild horse habitat. Management prescriptions for

wildlife under Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to wild horses because range

developments and fences in HMAs could be constructed in wildlife migration corridors, crucial

winter range, and parturition areas.

Special Status Species

Alternative C management of special status wildlife or plant species would result in impacts

similar to those under Alternative A, although to a greater degree because Alternative C allows

more development and surface disturbance. This is particularly true with greater sage-grouse

management. Like Alternative A, Alternative C applies a 1⁄4-mile buffer around greater

sage-grouse leks rather than the Alternative B 0.6-mile buffer, which opens 19,781 acres of

HMAs to surface disturbance. However, Alternative C includes more range development in the

unbuffered areas. Like Alternative A, Alternative C management would accelerate the downward

trend in greater sage-grouse population numbers, which would result in direct (due to loss of

vegetation) and indirect (due to potential changes in herd numbers should the greater sage-grouse

be listed under the ESA) adverse impacts to wild horses.

4.4.10.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Minerals

The types of impacts to wild horses under Alternative C minerals management would be the same

as under Alternative A. However, impacts would be greater under Alternative C because it opens

many more acres to surface disturbance rather than applying an NSO restriction, likely would

result in many more roads and ROWs associated with resource use, and does not limit mineral

materials disposals. See the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife section of this chapter for a

discussion of the adverse impacts to habitat from resource use. With the most acres available

to development and the fewest restrictions on that development, Alternative C would result in

the most surface disturbance compared to the other alternatives, and would therefore result in

the greatest adverse impacts to wild horses.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses
986 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Renewable Energy

Alternative C opens a total of 555,620 acres in HMAs to wind-energy development. Impacts to

wild horses from wind-energy development would be the same under Alternative A. However,

with more areas open and no areas excluded from transmission lines under Alternative C, it

would be more likely that wind energy could be developed in HMAs. Extensive wind-energy

development in HMAs could preclude gathers and inventory, which could result in irreparable

damage to the wild horses, a potential violation of protective federal legislation.

ROWs and Corridors

Alternative C would result in the same types adverse impacts to wild horses from ROW and

corridor management as Alternative A. Alternative C would result in the more adverse impacts to

wild horses than the other alternatives. Alternative C allows more ROWs and corridors in more

locations, and includes the fewest avoidance or exclusion areas, including through HMAs.

Livestock Grazing Management

Livestock grazing under Alternative C would result the greatest adverse impact to wild horses of

all the alternatives. Maximizing livestock grazing would create intense competition for forage

and water resources. Increased infrastructure for water development would not provide beneficial

impacts sufficient to offset the adverse impacts of shifting livestock use to upland areas that had

not been utilized because of lack of water. Fencing in the HMAs would block migration routes

and reduce genetic interchange between the various HMAs. Development of water outside the

HMAs would draw wild horses out of the historic HMAs and would cause horse populations to

increase outside their former HMAs. These animals would have to be monitored more frequently

and gathered to keep animals managed in their respective HMA.

Alternative C allows the same livestock grazing level (41 to 60 percent) as Alternative A, with a

managed grazing strategy. Alternative C would include more fences and their related adverse

impacts to wild horses than Alternative A and substantially more than Alternative B.

Wild horses could slowly adapt to the increased disturbances and competition with livestock, but

with confined living space their tolerance threshold could be exceeded (social space requirement).

Wild horses could be concentrated into smaller use areas, and increased competition for forage

and water between consumptive species would occur. Wild horses might be compelled to move

outside the identified HMA and would have to periodically gathered and returned or removed.

However, to comply with the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971, limitations could be placed on

other uses to ensure viable populations in HMAs. Emphasis on construction of exclusion fencing

to protect resource values would result in a long-term adverse impact to the free-roaming nature

of wild horses.

In some cases, primarily in smaller HMAs with fewer animals identified in appropriate

management levels, conflicts with objectives to emphasize livestock production would be great.

Trails and Travel Management

Alternative C trails and travel management would result in the same types of adverse impacts

to wild horses as alternatives A and B, except to a greater degree. Alternative C does not limit

over-snow vehicle use. In all areas, Alternative C allows travel on existing roads, which would

result in more adverse impacts to wild horses than limiting travel to designated roads. Alternative

B extends the limit on travel to designated roads to a larger part of the Green Mountain HMA.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 987

Recreation

Alternative C recreation management would result in the same types of adverse impacts as

Alternative A, except to a greater degree. Alternative C recreation management accelerates

the trend away from more primitive recreation settings to a more urban-industrial setting

occurring under Alternative A. This would result in a much more adverse impact to wild horses

than Alternative B, under which the recreation setting trend would be the reverse. Long term,

Alternative C recreation management would result in the most adverse impacts to wild horses of

all alternatives.

4.4.10.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not specifically designate the Green Mountain ACEC and manages the area

with standard stipulations. No Plans of Operations are required for locatable mineral exploration

that would disturb fewer than 5 acres. This would adversely impact the Green Mountain

wild-horse herd. This management would result in adverse impacts to wild horses because there

would be no protections from vehicular travel and no seasonal closures. Therefore, the horses

would be subject to confrontations with humans during the winter months when horses would be

stressed by severe winter weather.

4.4.10.3.5. Alternative D

4.4.10.3.5.1. Program Management

Except for livestock grazing and special designations, Alternative D wild horse management is

more similar to Alternative B than to alternatives A and C. Alternative D focuses on maintenance

of healthy, viable herds and habitat and emphasizes conservation of physical, biological, heritage,

and visual resources with constraints on resource uses, although less so than Alternative B. Scenic

loops would be established in the HMAs. Alternative D manages to protect vegetation and limits

surface disturbance second only to Alternative B.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative D would utilize range improvement projects

pursuant to a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands which would allow more livestock grazing than Alternative B but less than either

Alternative A or C. Resource values such as wildlife winter range and migration corridors,

riparian-wetland areas, and the greater sage-grouse Core Area could limit AUMs available for

livestock, which would result in direct beneficial impacts to wild horses. Upland areas not

used by livestock under alternatives A and B will be utilized under both alternatives C and D,

with fencing and water developments utilized to alter livestock distribution although less so in

Alternative D. Vegetation emphasis for the benefit of greater sage-grouse will benefit wild horses

if it reduces competition from other foraging species. Limitations on fences would beneficially

impact wild horses.

Providing opportunities for wild horse viewing in the HMAs would have the same impacts as

those described under Alternative A.

Compared to other alternatives, management actions under Alternative D would result in the

second most direct and indirect beneficial impacts to wild horses and their habitat.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses
988 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.4.10.3.5.2. Resources

Soil and Water

In general, management under Alternative D emphasizes conservation and protection of soil

and water and limits surface disturbance more than any alternative except Alternative B; this

management would improve forage and the health of wild horses (see the Soil, Water, and

Vegetation – Grasslands and Shrubland Communities sections of this chapter). Therefore,

management under Alternative D would result in the same types of beneficial impacts to wild

horses as Alternative B, but to a lesser degree. However, to the extent that Alternative D allows

more surface disturbance in HMAs, including opening 60 percent more of HMAs to mineral

leasing with moderate or standard stipulations than Alternative B, it would result in many fewer

beneficial impacts than Alternative B, although much more than alternatives A and C.

Forests, Forest Products, Fire and Fuels

Alternative D forest management practices (i.e., no clear-cutting) would create less new forage

than management under Alternative C. However, this less-beneficial impact to the Green

Mountain HMA would have a limited effect because of low demand for forest products. In

addition, there will be the same level of mechanical fire and fuels treatment under Alternative

D as under Alternative A and less than under Alternative B because Alternative D constructs

range improvement projects to support comprehensive grazing management strategies. This

would result in short-term beneficial impacts to wild horses because it would reduce the potential

disturbance and displacement of wild horses; however, it would result in a long-term adverse

impact by not improving vegetation condition or reducing the potential for larger, more intense

fires, which would result in slower rehabilitation and ultimately a greater loss of forage. This

management also could require emergency roundups if large areas burn and leave very little

forage for wild horses. Alternative D uses a mixed approach to fire suppression activities, which

would result in short- and long-term beneficial and adverse impacts to wild horses.

Grasslands and Shrublands

In general, management under Alternative D emphasizes the conservation and protection of

resources (e.g., vegetation) by limiting surface disturbance. This should improve forage and the

health of wild horses. Therefore, management of vegetative resources under Alternative D would

result in more beneficial impacts to wild horses than alternatives A and C and fewer beneficial

impacts than Alternative B.

Invasive Species

Alternative D INNS management is approximately the same as Alternative A, although

Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts because it allows less surface disturbance

and allows livestock flushing. Alternative D would treat the same number of acres as alternatives

A and C and fewer than Alternative B. There could be short-term beneficial impacts to wild

horses because Alternative D treats fewer areas in HMAs under Alternative B (and the treated

areas could require a rest period). However, long term, Alternative D would result in fewer

beneficial impacts from treatment alone. The most substantial impact to wild horses from INNS

management under Alternative D would be the more limited amount of non-livestock-related

surface disturbance compared to all alternatives other than Alternative B.

Riparian-Wetlands

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 989

In general, management under Alternative D emphasizes the conservation and protection of

resources such as riparian-wetlands, which would improve forage and the health of wild horses,

but less than management under Alternative B. Alternative D includes the same riparian-wetland

setback as alternatives A and C, but closes more areas to surface disturbance in the resource use

areas, resulting in beneficial impacts to riparian-wetlands. However, some of this beneficial

impact would be offset by riparian-wetland management for livestock grazing. Under Alternative

D, a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy will be implemented to address livestock grazing in

riparian-wetland systems while considering other resource values and their needs (e.g., wild

horses).

Alternative D limits the use of fencing as part of livestock allotment management to cases

where resource benefits exceed adverse impacts. Therefore, improvement in riparian-wetlands

might be achieved more slowly than under Alternative A, which authorizes riparian-wetland

fences. Fencing riparian-wetland areas to prevent grazing is the fastest method to achieve

riparian-wetland health, but it also would remove the riparian-wetlands as available wild-horse

forage and a source of drinking water, an adverse impact. Project implementation could be

restricted in wildlife migration corridors and HMAs, thus allowing wild horses to continue to use

their HMAs as they have historically.

If removal of these riparian-wetland areas occurred, restricting wild-horse access would cause

wild horses to move away from their traditional use areas to other areas inside or outside the

HMA. Wild horses also would utilize development water sources such as stock tanks and wells for

their drinking water needs. This increase in use of these water sources would create competition

between livestock and wild horses because the watering area of the source would limited in size.

Horses would chase livestock away and not allow them for instance to drink during the grazing

season. Conversely, with smaller areas to water, cattle could drink all available water and not

leave any available to other species such as wild horses. By not fencing these riparian-wetland

areas as described for Alternative B, there would be more space for wild horses and cattle to water

and freely forage, which would reduce competition between species.

Wildlife

In general, management under Alternative D emphasizes the conservation and protection of

resources (e.g., wildlife), which would improve forage and the health of wild horses. Therefore,

management of resources under Alternative D would result in the second greatest beneficial

impacts to wild horses compared to the other alternatives (less only than Alternative B). However,

unlike Alternative B, if there are modifications needed to accommodate forage allocations to

wildlife, it is not likely that livestock grazing AUMs would be reduced because grazing is

managed as part of a comprehensive system (see below in the discussion of livestock grazing).

Alternative D authorizes fences in migration corridors, crucial winter ranges, and parturition areas

if needed to support a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy. This would result in more adverse

impacts to wild horses than Alternative B and more beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C.

Special Status Species

Alternative D management of special status wildlife or plant species would result in impacts

similar to Alternative B, although to a substantially lesser degree in the case of greater

sage-grouse. Alternative D greater sage-grouse protections close 32,231 acres of HMAs to

surface disturbance from a smaller list of activities than Alternative B (discussed below under

Resource Uses). Alternative D applies the same limits on density and number of developments

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses
990 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

in connection with oil and gas and wind-energy development projects and transmission lines

(although only in the greater sage-grouse Core Area and not nesting habitat, as under Alternative

B), but applies no similar limitations on range improvement projects, solid mineral leasing, and

non-energy ROWs, which would result in less-beneficial impacts to wild horses.

While Alternative D greater sage-grouse management would result in fewer beneficial impacts to

wild horses than Alternative B, Alternative D management would result in substantially more

beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C.

4.4.10.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Locatable Minerals

Alternative D proposes to withdraw 16,866 acres of HMAs from locatable mineral entry, many

fewer acres than Alternative B but more than Alternative A. Alternative D would result in the

same types of adverse impacts to wild horses as Alternative A. However, Alternative D opens

fewer acres open to development and would result in substantially less surface disturbance (and

related habitat fragmentation, including fences) compared to alternatives A and C and would

therefore result in fewer adverse impacts to wild horses.

Leasable and Salable Minerals

Alternative D management of leasable and salable minerals, including oil and gas, would result in

the same beneficial impacts as management of locatable minerals. Alternative D opens fewer

acres to these mineral activities than Alternative A and many fewer acres than Alternative C and

also applies Required Design Features where development is allowed. Therefore, Alternative D

would result in less surface disturbance and associated habitat fragmentation and human contact.

Alternative D minerals management would result in many fewer beneficial impacts to wild horses

than Alternative B but considerably more than Alternative A.

Renewable Energy

As discussed under Alternative A, wind-energy development can result in short- and long-term

adverse impacts to wild horses. Alternative D opens 61,257 acres of HMAs with high

wind potential to wind-energy development. The beneficial impact of closing almost all

high-wind-potential areas would be the greatest in the Red Desert Complex HMAs (Green

Mountain, Crooks Mountain, and Antelope Hills). The North Lander Complex (Rock Creek

Mountain, Dishpan Butte, Conant Creek, and Muskrat Basin) HMAs has relatively low

wind-energy potential below Beaver Rim (Conant Creek and a portion of Muskrat Basin) and high

potential above Beaver Rim (Dishpan Butte, Rock Creek Mountain, and Muskrat Basin HMAs).

Wind-energy development that could occur in these HMAs would make gather and removal

become extremely difficult because aircraft used to gather wild horses would need to negotiate

and work around wind turbines in these HMAs.

ROWs and Corridors

Alternative D affords more protection for wild horses than alternatives A and C, limiting major

ROWs to designated corridors. However, the corridors bisect the Muskrat Basin HMA and

intersect a very small portion of the Green Mountain HMA. Alternative D ROW and corridor

management through the Muskrat Basin HMA would result in adverse impacts the same as

described for ROW and corridor management under Alternative A. Like Alternative B, Alternative

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 991

D would result in more beneficial impacts than Alternative A or C because Alternative D excludes

the balance of the HMAs from ROWs; Alternative A allows them on a case-by-case basis.

Trails and Travel Management

Alternative D trails and travel management would result in beneficial impacts similar to those

under Alternative B and less adverse than impacts under Alternative C.

Livestock Grazing Management

Alternative D livestock management would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses similar

to Alternative B. Alternative D avoids constructing range improvement projects across the

planning area without consideration of other resource values, rather than maximizing livestock

use. Alternative D requires that range improvement projects be in support of a Comprehensive

Grazing Strategy to achieve healthy rangelands. However, range infrastructure projects developed

pursuant to a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy could adversely impact wild horses if movement

areas and migration corridors were cutoff or limited by fences constructed in HMA. Moreover, the

strategy will disturb 620 acres associated with new fence construction and 227 acres associated

with spring, reservoir, and well developments. These new water developments would draw horses

away from their HMA and provide new habitat in which horses would establish. This would

result in beneficial impacts to the horses, but also adverse impacts because horses would need to

be inventoried and gathered more frequently outside the HMAs. Alternative D livestock grazing

management allows range improvement projects that would adversely impact rangeland health if

impacts were offset by rangeland improvements. However, there could be more adverse impacts

to wild horses, particularly in upland range, than beneficial impacts from improved conditions for

wild horses that do not loiter in riparian-wetland areas.

Under Alternative D, infrastructure, including riparian-wetland exclosure fences, will be utilized

in some cases to achieve riparian-wetland health; however, this would adversely impact wild

horses because fenced riparian-wetland areas would not be available for wild horses to forage

and water in. Exclosure or pasture fencing of riparian-wetland areas would compel some wild

horses to move out of the HMA to new areas in search of water and forage. This movement of

horses outside the HMA would increase competition for forage and water with cattle. Livestock

utilization levels under Alternative D are the same as under alternatives A and C (moderate) and

would result in fewer beneficial impacts to wild horses than the light utilization under Alternative

B. Upland range use by livestock will be greater under Alternative D (more like Alternative C

than Alternative B because livestock distribution is spread out away from riparian-wetland areas).

This would increase competition with other grazing animals such as wild horses. This would

result in a less beneficial impact than Alternative B, which designates lower utilization levels and

would likely have fewer livestock grazing AUMs, particularly over time.

Alternative D will develop infrastructure to support the Comprehensive Grazing Strategy. Fences

are allowed in wildlife (and wild horse) migration corridors, crucial winter range, and parturition

areas if needed to support the Comprehensive Grazing Strategy. However, such fences would

need to be mitigated through design features that allow wild horses to freely migrate or move

in and out of the areas. This impact would be similar to but lesser than Alternative C and much

more adverse than Alternative B.

Recreation

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild Horses
992 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Impacts from recreation management under Alternative D would be similar to those under

Alternative B. Alternative D establishes a number of recreation management areas, including

the CDNST Destination SRMA and the National Trails Undeveloped SRMA. Recreation

management would stop the movement toward a more industrial setting and trend toward a more

primitive setting. While it is possible that more focused recreation management would increase

human visitation, recreation management would limit adverse impacts to wild horse habitat.

4.4.10.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative D manages 52,427 acres of HMA as ACECs, with management prescriptions that

would beneficially impact wild horses. The most direct impact would result from the increased

size of the Green Mountain ACEC, which puts 6,777 more acres of HMA into the ACEC than

Alternative A. ACEC management under Alternative D limits surface disturbance, mineral

actions, ROWs, habitat fragmentation, and other human presence; this would result in direct

beneficial impacts to wild horses and indirectly beneficial impacts by improving vegetation,

although less so than under Alternative B. For wildlife ACECs such as Green Mountain,

Alternative D allows range improvement projects only if they would benefit wildlife, which

would also beneficially impact wild horses.

Alternative D manages Congressionally Designated Trails in the Antelope Hills and Crooks

Mountain HMAs as the NTMC. Beneficial impacts to wildlife from Congressionally Designated

Trails management would be similar to beneficial impacts from ACEC management.

4.5. Heritage and Visual Resources

4.5.1. Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are defined as the places where the physical remains of past peoples can be

found. If these remains are determined to be important, federal regulations require that effects to

the resources be assessed and mitigation measures be instituted to help protect them.

Adverse impacts to cultural resources typically result when there is a loss of information

and/or a loss of integrity of the resource. Impacts on significant prehistoric, historic, and

spiritual/sacred/traditional cultural resources on BLM-administered lands can include actions that

physically damage or destroy all or parts of a resource; actions that alter a significant element

of a resource; actions that introduce visual, atmospheric (air), or audible (noise) elements that

can diminish the historical integrity of a resource; or a lack of action that causes a resource to

deteriorate. Increased access to areas that contain cultural resources can result in increased use,

erosion, looting, and vandalism, all adverse impacts.

Actions that cause physical damage or destruction, or neglect, generally result in adverse impacts

to cultural resources significant for their scientific-data potential; prehistoric campsites often fall

into this category. Although data recovery at these sites can increase our knowledge of the past,

adverse impacts to these types of resources are considered long-term, because once the resources

are damaged or disturbed, impacts cannot be reversed.

All the actions identified above can adversely affect cultural resources significant for their

important historical associations, their unique architectural, artistic, or representational

characteristics, or their important spiritual and/or religious associations. Prehistoric and historic

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Heritage and Visual Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 993

sites such as Castle Gardens, the Oregon Trail, the Rawlins-Fort Washakie Stage Trail, Rocky

Ridge, Martin’s Cove, and Miner’s Delight Townsite are some of the sites in this category.

Adverse impacts to these types of resources can be short-term and long-term, because some of

impacts could be reversed, while others could not.

Finally, all types of actions can adversely affect cultural resources significant for their spiritual,

sacred, and/or traditional values. Prehistoric and historic sacred sites such as Cedar Ridge, Castle

Gardens, burials, and Martin’s Cove are some of the sites in this category. Adverse impacts to

these types of cultural resources would be mostly long-term, because Native American groups

consider such impacts to have a permanent impact on the spiritual nature of the sites.

Beneficial impacts on cultural resources result from special management measures that enhance

the quality of a resource or its surroundings. Stabilization and repair of historic structures at

Miner’s Delight, stabilization at rock art sites and inscription sites like Castle Gardens and Devil’s

Gate, and fencing at grave sites such as the Miner’s Delight Cemetery are examples of beneficial

impacts. Erosion control measures on the Oregon Trail and at some prehistoric and historic

campsites are also examples of beneficial impacts. Most of these beneficial impacts would be

long-term, but eventually, more measures will be required to prevent natural and/or human

influences from degrading these resources.

4.5.1.1. Summary of Impacts

Impacts to cultural resources would vary by alternative. Alternatives A and C are similar in

their protections, but Alternative A generally provides more protections than Alternative C.

Alternative B provides greater protection for cultural resources than alternatives A and C,

and somewhat more protection than Alternative D. As for specific resources, Warm Springs

Canyon Flume is somewhat protected under Alternative A, well protected under alternatives B

and D, and minimally protected under Alternative C. Spiritual/sacred/traditional sites receive

similar protections under all alternatives, although management would be more effective under

alternatives B and D and slightly less effective under Alternative C.

The number of sites various actions would affect correlates directly with the degree, nature, and

quantity of surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities in the planning area. In this regard,

Alternative C would result in the most surface disturbance and Alternative B the least.

Under all alternatives, the BLM continues its obligation to conduct government-to-government

consultations with interested tribes. Actions required by the NHPA and the Wyoming State

Protocol Agreement will form the foundation of all project-specific decisions regarding cultural

resources under all alternatives. Conflicts between cultural resources and other resource uses not

covered by this RMP will generally be resolved by the Wyoming State Protocol Agreement and

NHPA provisions. However, Alternative C would require the most consultation with the State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) because more surface-disturbing activities would occur

under that alternative.

4.5.1.2. Methods and Assumptions

The degree of adverse impacts to sites and the total number of sites adversely impacted in the

planning area is directly correlated to the amount of surface-disturbing or other disruptive

activities allowed under each alternative. Cultural resources would be increasingly adversely

impacted as the amount of resource use increases. Reduction or elimination of land uses in a

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources
994 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

particular area would benefit cultural resources through a reduction in direct and indirect impacts

to the resources.

All authorizations for land and resource use must comply with all relevant cultural resource

laws, regulations, protocols, and policies. Protection of cultural resources must also conform to

SHPO coordination requirements, with input from the local public, other interested parties, and

Native American groups.

A cultural resource inventory, evaluation of site NRHP eligibility, and assessment of potential

impacts from federal actions are required by law before the initiation of most surface-disturbing

and other disruptive activities. This generally requires a Class III intensive field inventory of the

affected area. This allows for prescriptive mitigation of impacts through avoidance or other

measures where necessary, and minimizes or eliminates the potential for unmitigated impacts to

cultural resources. In areas with high potential for buried resources, construction monitoring and

open trench inspection are some of the methods used to discover and protect cultural resources

not apparent from surface inventories.

Cultural resources are evaluated according to their significance under NRHP criteria. If cultural

resources are found to be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, they are managed for preservation

of their important values. Conversely, if the resources are found to be not eligible for inclusion

on the NRHP, they are, in most cases, not managed or preserved. Depending on the nature of

their value, eligible resources are managed through avoidance and preservation, or if that is not

feasible, through data recovery, intensive recordation, or interpretive/education mitigation.

Some significant cultural resources include the historical settings around them. For example,

historic trails, sites, battlefields, disaster scenes, and sacred sites can contain intact settings, in

which the landscape still retains much of the character it had when the historic events occurred.

These historical settings are often considered an important component of the cultural resource,

and can be included in consideration of potential impacts to the resource.

Certain projects, due to size or topography, could require consideration of visual intrusions into

the setting beyond the foreground or middle-ground zones to comply with NHPA Section 106.

For historic trails (excluding NHTs which are discussed under Special Designations), direct and

indirect impacts can result from a variety of natural and human-caused actions, such as those that

physically alter, damage, or destroy all or part of the trail; improved access, which brings increased

use to an area, altering characteristics of the surrounding environment that contribute to the trail’s

importance; the introduction of visual or audible elements out of character with the trail or that

alter its historic setting; and neglect of the trail to the extent that it deteriorates or is destroyed.

Recognizing that historic trails often comprise numerous routes rather than a single trace, all

protective zones are measured from the outer edges of the trails rather than from the center line.

Under all alternatives, the BLM encourages opportunities to cooperate with private landowners to

minimize or eliminate disturbance to historic trails.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 995

4.5.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.5.1.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Cultural resources in the planning area frequently experience adverse impacts. There are many

different causes for these impacts, including surface disturbance, overuse, introduction of

elements out of character with the resource, neglect, erosion, natural deterioration, and looting and

vandalism. Surface disturbance is by far the most common adverse impact to cultural resources,

especially in areas of industrial development.

Standard procedures have been developed to help address impacts to significant paleontological

resources, and include archival research, on-the-ground inventories, locality recordation and

evaluation, data recovery excavations, condition assessments, stabilization, and, in certain cases,

avoidance. These standard procedures can protect paleontological resources from damage where

paleontological resources are known or discovered. All of the alternatives are guided by these

standard procedures.

However, standard procedures sometimes do not protect all types of cultural resources.

Development projects can indirectly affect resources where setting is important. Projects that

intrude on important historical settings can affect connected historic trails or sites. For example, a

modern powerline built near the Oregon Trail would adversely impact the historical setting of

the trail and would adversely affect its historical integrity. To help reduce these types of adverse

impacts, land users and the BLM are able to and have entered into agreements where special

guidelines to reduce visual effects have been incorporated into field-wide operations.

Another issue is that standard procedures do not identify all cultural resources before they

experience adverse impacts, which can happen when cultural resources are below ground level and

not visible from the surface. These resources are often discovered only after surface-disturbing

activities have uncovered them, and construction activities can quickly and severely affect them,

with data lost in the process. This type of impact occurs regularly in the planning area because

sites thousands of years old are often buried by sand and soil. In these cases, mitigation usually

entails data recovery and salvage excavations. These excavations are designed to retrieve the

remaining data from the site and study it to reconstruct what occurred there in the past.

The standard procedures mentioned above also do not apply to small locatable minerals

exploration. Locatable minerals projects affecting fewer than 5 acres are subject to the 43 CFR

3809 “Notice of Intent” regulations, which offer minimal protections to cultural resources. These

operations do not require BLM approval and can result in adverse impacts to cultural sites if

necessary for mining operations to proceed.

Increased public use of lands can also result in adverse impacts. Increased public use occurs due

to improved access to formerly remote areas, such as areas where development creates new roads,

or the use of OHVs to access formerly remote areas. A third cause is increased public interest in

specific historic sites or areas. As public use increases from all these causes, so do impacts to

cultural resources. As more use occurs, more cultural resources are visited or driven over, and

some of the resources are looted or vandalized. This adverse impact would occur under any of the

alternatives because access, OHV use, and public use and interest are all expected to increase.

Full suppression of wildfire and limitations on the use of prescribed fire provide short-term

benefit to cultural resources (assuming that firefighting efforts themselves do not damage cultural

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources
996 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

resources). On a long-term basis, cultural resources could be adversely impacted if the techniques

utilized do not prevent landscape-level fires. However, in greater sage-grouse Core Area with less

than 12 inches of precipitation per year, all alternatives use the same approaches to fire for the

benefit of greater sage-grouse: full suppression of fire and the avoidance of prescribed fire except

under unique conditions. Therefore, in the analysis that follows, discussion of the use of fire by

alternative is limited to those areas not managed for the benefit of greater sage-grouse habitat.

Because certain cultural resources in the planning area (such as the NHTs, the South Pass

Historic Mining Area, Castle Gardens, Cedar Ridge, and the RHT&EHs) have been identified

or nominated as special designations (Congressionally Designated NHTs and ACECs), they are

addressed under the Special Designations section rather than here.

4.5.1.3.2. Alternative A

4.5.1.3.2.1. Program Management

When development projects are proposed that could adversely affect paleontological resources,

reactive cultural resource management uses the standard procedures to protect important

paleontological resources. Proactive management protects important resources that are not

threatened by development, but still require measures to maintain or enhance their significant

qualities. Alternative A uses reactive management to address impacts on a case-by-case basis,

and uses proactive management to address impacts to sites such as Warm Springs Canyon Flume

and some rock art sites. Proactive management is necessary to protect or stabilize these sites and

maintain their important qualities, which are threatened by natural or human-caused actions.

Alternative A does not manage the Beaver Rim area with an MLP.

4.5.1.3.2.2. Resources

Air quality management under Alternative A would result in no or minor adverse impacts to

cultural resources where setting is an important characteristic. Efforts to maintain air quality

around sites with historic settings would help maintain their important qualities, but if degradation

occurs, it would adversely impact these sites. As a result, there would be no or a minor adverse

impact to Warm Springs Canyon Flume and to known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites in the

planning area. Slope and riparian-wetland setbacks would beneficially affect cultural resources

by limiting surface disturbance. The scale of beneficial impacts can be quantified only on

a site-specific basis.

All alternatives are the same in limiting the use of heavy fire equipment for the protection of

cultural resources. Alternative A uses a case-by-case method of determining whether to use full

suppression. Alternative A management of wildfires would be unlikely to effectively protect

cultural resources because information about the locations of cultural resources that could be

damaged or destroyed is not readily available to fire personnel. Resource advisors are engaged for

the management of some fires, but they cannot be everywhere on fires as they happen. The fire

and fuels program has been notified about the presence of Warm Springs Canyon Flume, and it

would be adequately protected from the impacts of surface disturbance and wildfire. However,

spiritual/sacred/traditional site information is kept confidential and not disseminated to other

programs; therefore, such sites are subject to adverse impacts.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 997

VRM Class ratings that protect natural viewsheds also protect cultural resource sites where

setting is considered important. The 1987 RMP includes a few areas that protect visual settings

of cultural resources (some of the Lander Slope, South Pass, Dubois, Green Mountain, and the

Sweetwater River area), but most of the planning area is not protected in this way. Warm Springs

Canyon Flume and some known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites are in VRM Class III areas,

which offers some limited protection for their historical/natural settings. Other sacred sites are in

VRM Class IV areas, where surface-disturbing activities with the potential to result in moderate

to major adverse impacts could occur.

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water,

biological resources, and special designations) under Alternative A provide would additional

protections from surface-disturbing activities for cultural resources.

4.5.1.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A provides mostly minimal protection from locatable mineral exploration, except

where there are withdrawals or ACECs. Locatable mining regulations do not follow the standard

cultural resource protection measures described above and, unless the exploration project covers

more than 5 acres of disturbance or is in an ACEC, cultural resources are subject to little

protection from the impacts of mining. Alternative A withdraws 23,114 acres from locatable

minerals exploration and retains all existing ACECs, which would protect some cultural resources.

Known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites are minimally protected under Alternative A and subject

to adverse impacts from mining; however, the likelihood for locatable mineral exploration around

most of these sites is low. The Warm Springs Canyon Flume site is mostly withdrawn from

mineral entry, which protects it from the adverse impacts of locatable minerals exploration.

Under Alternative A, leasable fluid minerals activities are at BLM discretion; therefore, there

would be better controls on impacts to cultural resources than for locatable minerals. Standard

procedures under this program (see Impacts Common to All Alternatives) provide for minor to

moderate protection of cultural resources, especially those resources important for their data

potential. Field inventories, resource evaluations, and impacts mitigation are routinely performed

for these types of projects, and most cultural resource sites are adequately protected from direct

adverse impacts. However, protection of certain sites, such as historic sites with significant

historic settings or spiritual/sacred/traditional sites, can be a problem. Alternative A manages

these sites on a case-by-case basis, and protection measures usually focus on reducing impacts,

rather than preventing them. This is the case for spiritual/sacred/traditional sites, and several of

these sites are in areas with high potential for oil and gas. However, Warm Springs Canyon Flume

is protected because 557 acres around it are protected with Category 4 restrictions.

There are no special management prescriptions for the cultural resources in the Beaver Rim area

and there is no requirement to conduct tribal consultation even for those oil and gas activities very

near to known cultural sites. As a consequence, adverse impacts may occur, particularly for sites

that would be important to Native Americans.

Leasable solid minerals and mineral materials disposals, such as phosphates, zeolites, sand, and

gravel, are different from fluid minerals because impacts to cultural resources from these resource

uses depend largely on the location of the minerals near the surface. If a significant cultural

resource is in or near an exposure to be explored, the likelihood of adverse impacts to the resource

would be high. In addition, it is much more difficult to protect the historical settings of sites from

solid minerals exploration. Exploration and mining operations cannot easily be hidden, and can

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources
998 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

affect the historical settings of resources. Most of the planning area is open to phosphate leasing,

although with some surface limitations that would moderately benefit cultural resources. The

Warm Springs Canyon Flume site area is mostly closed to phosphate leasing under Alternative A,

and no known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites are near known leasable solid minerals exposures;

therefore, no impacts to known cultural resources from this type of activity would be expected.

Warm Springs Canyon is mostly closed to phosphate leasing, but spiritual/sacred/traditional sites

are not, and those resource could be subject to adverse impacts.

Highly visible ROW projects such as industrial wind-energy developments and large transmission

lines can adversely impact cultural resources in several ways. Standard procedures cover direct

impacts to resources important for their data potential, but the large size of these projects can

easily adversely affect sites where setting is important. For example, an industrial wind-energy

development or gas plant near a sacred site would result in a major impact to the site’s value

to Native American groups. Similarly, a dam along Warm Springs Creek would result in a

major impact to the flume’s historical setting. Alternative A does not include protections from

these types of projects for Warm Springs Canyon Flume or known spiritual/sacred/traditional

sites. The potential for large industrial plants and transmission lines near some of the known

spiritual/sacred/traditional sites would be high under this alternative. Conversely, the potential for

highly visible projects near Warm Springs Canyon Flume would be low. Special Designations

below addresses the protection of cultural resources in ACECs from adverse impacts of ROW

development.

Recreational activities on public lands have increased since the current RMP was implemented

in 1987 and impacts to cultural resources have risen accordingly. Low levels of surface artifact

collection and illegal digging of sites is an ongoing problem. Although a law enforcement ranger

is stationed at the Lander Field Office, enforcement is difficult in a 2.4 million-acre planning area.

Therefore, under Alternative A, impacts to cultural resources from recreational activities would

result in moderate impacts to cultural resources.

4.5.1.3.2.4. Special Designations

Alternative A includes nine ACECs and Congressionally Designated Trails, and limits surface

disturbances in various ways, including NSO restrictions for oil and gas development, mining

Plans of Operation, and avoidance of major ROWs. These prescriptions indirectly protect cultural

resources. Significant historic settings are protected to a certain extent, depending on the size of

the protected area. Alternative A would result in moderate to major beneficial impacts to cultural

resources in ACECs and within 1⁄4 mile of Congressionally Designated Trails. Beyond 1⁄4 mile of

Congressionally Designated Trails, however, little protection is given to the setting. In addition,

neither Warm Springs Canyon Flume nor any known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites are in

existing ACECs, Congressionally Designated Trails, or NWSRS-eligible waterway segments.

Alternative A has standard stipulations only in the proposed expanded Beaver Rim and Green

Mountain ACECs. This management has the potential of allowing adverse impacts to cultural

resources in those area, particularly if tribal consultation is not conducted.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 999

4.5.1.3.3. Alternative B

4.5.1.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B includes more proactive steps to manage cultural resources than Alternative A.

Implementation of this alternative would prevent more adverse impacts to important cultural

sites in the planning area, including a wider range of sites where setting is important and

spiritual/sacred/traditional sites. Alternative B provides more protections to Warm Springs

Canyon Flume and known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites.

4.5.1.3.3.2. Resources

Alternative B specifies that air quality management will reduce emissions and improve air

quality. This action would beneficially impact cultural resources, including setting, more than

Alternative A.

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of lands with wilderness

characteristics under Alternative B provides additional protections for cultural resources.

Alternative A does not apply these restrictions; therefore, Alternative B would be more beneficial

than Alternative A for cultural resources in the Little Red Creek Complex.

Alternative B specifies full fire suppression near identified cultural sites to protect them from the

impacts of fire. Identifying cultural resources in advance and making the fire program aware of

their locations would be more protective of important resources than Alternative A, and would

prevent adverse impacts from fire suppression.

Alternative B manages approximately 1 million more acres of BLM surface as VRM Classes I

and II than Alternative A, and protects more cultural resources from the introduction of modern

visual intrusions. This would especially protect more sites where setting is considered important

and would result in major beneficial impacts to cultural resources. Alternative B manages Warm

Springs Canyon Flume with VRM Class II prescriptions, which would better protect the historic

settings of this site than would prescriptions under Alternative A, which allows more surface

disturbance and visual intrusions. However, no known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites would be

protected, because none are in VRM Class I and II areas. Therefore, the impacts under Alternative

B to these types of sites from VRM would be the same as Alternative A.

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water,

biological resources, and special designations) are greatest under Alternative B, which would

provide additional protections for cultural resources and reduce adverse impacts.

4.5.1.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B proposes to withdraw 1,609,491 more acres of mineral estate from locatable mineral

entry than Alternative A, and protects more cultural resources from potential disturbances than

Alternative A. This would protect more cultural sites where setting is considered important. While

not all of the area withdrawn under Alternative B has high potential for locatable mineral, the

withdrawal would preclude any kind of surface disturbance from mining, which would result in a

major beneficial impact to cultural resources and their settings. Alternative B withdraws 283 more

acres from locatable minerals around Warm Springs Canyon Flume than Alternative A, which

would better protect the historic setting around the flume. Some known spiritual/sacred/traditional

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources
1000 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

sites are in withdrawn areas and would be protected, but some are not and would be subject to

potential adverse impacts. However, the likelihood of locatable mineral exploration around these

unprotected spiritual/sacred/traditional sites would be low. New withdrawals would not apply to

existing claims, because this management would not change preexisting rights.

Alternative B closes leasing for fluid minerals (oil and gas) exploration on 1,851,349 more

acres of surface than Alternative A, and would protect more cultural resources from potential

disturbances than Alternative A. This would especially protect more sites where setting is

considered important. Under Alternative B, some known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites are in

NSO areas and would be protected (not the cause under Alternative A), but some are not and

would be subject to more impacts because they are in areas with high potential for oil and gas.

Leasable solid minerals and mineral materials are more restricted under Alternative B.

Alternative B closes approximately 2 million acres to these uses, while Alternative A closes

approximately 229,014 acres to mineral materials development and 154,106 acres to phosphate

development. Closure under Alternative B is a more specific prescription than the ambiguous

surface disturbance limitations found under Alternative A, resulting in major beneficial impacts

to cultural resources because the areas closed under Alternative B have the best potential for

phosphate. Most known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites and Warm Springs Canyon Flume are

closed from mineral material disposal and phosphate leasing under Alternative B, so these sites

would not be subject to adverse impacts.

Alternative B restricts wind-energy development, mines, power and gas plants, and major ROWs

to a much greater extent than Alternative A. Alternative B protects most cultural resources in the

planning area from the impacts of wind-energy development, large mines, and ROW impacts,

including Warm Springs Canyon Flume and known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites, and would

result in major beneficial impacts to cultural resources.

Impacts from recreation management would generally be the same under Alternative B as

under Alternative A. To the extent that some recreation areas are closed to motorized travel or

cross-country nonmotorized vehicle use, this would beneficially impact cultural resources.

4.5.1.3.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative B limits surface disturbance in ACECs, Congressionally Designated Trails, and

NWSRS-eligible and suitable waterway segments, including the application of NSO restrictions

for oil and gas development, requirements for mining Plans of Operation, and avoidance of

major ROWs. These management prescriptions would protect cultural resources. Significant

historic settings are protected to a moderate to major extent as well, depending on the size of the

protected area. Under Alternative B, a 1,325,818 acre increase in acres with surface protections as

a result of special designations would result in major beneficial impacts to cultural resources in

specially designated areas. This would enhance the protection of cultural resources in several

parts of the planning area. However, neither Warm Springs Canyon Flume nor any known

spiritual/sacred/traditional sites would be protected in this manner because none of them are in

existing or proposed ACECs, Congressionally Designated Trails, or WSRs.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1001

4.5.1.3.4. Alternative C

4.5.1.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C has less proactive management than Alternative A. The minimum actions necessary

to comply with regulations will be applied to cultural resources, which would result in more

adverse impacts to several types of heritage resources than Alternative A. Alternative C provides

some protections for Warm Springs Canyon Flume and spiritual/sacred/traditional sites, but

deterioration would be expected to continue at a low level. Only standard oil and gas stipulations

are applied and not areas are avoided for ROWs.

4.5.1.3.4.2. Resources

Air quality management and fire management are the same under Alternative C as under

Alternative A, and would result in the same impacts to cultural resources. However, Alternative C

would result in more adverse impacts to cultural resources than Alternative B. Like Alternative

A, air quality management under Alternative C would result in little to no adverse impacts to

cultural resources where setting is an important characteristic.

Alternative C classifies 179,138 fewer acres as VRM Classes I and II than Alternative A, and

protects fewer cultural resources from the introduction of modern visual intrusions. Alternative

C would result in more adverse impacts to cultural resources than Alternative A, especially

for sites where setting is considered important. Warm Springs Canyon Flume and all known

spiritual/sacred/traditional sites are in VRM Class IV areas, which would provide little or no

protection for the historic/natural settings of these sites.

Because Alternative C places more of an emphasis on resource use, there are fewer restrictions

on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water, biological

resources, and special designations). Therefore, there would be more adverse impacts to cultural

resources under Alternative C than under alternatives A and B.

4.5.1.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C provides minimal protection for cultural resources from locatable mineral

exploration. This alternative proposes to withdraw 23,114 fewer acres of federal mineral estate

from locatable mineral entry than Alternative A, and protects fewer cultural resources from

potential disturbances. Locatable mining regulations do not follow the standard cultural resource

protection measures previously described and, unless the mining exploration covers more than 5

acres of disturbance, cultural resources would be subject to little protection from mining impacts.

Even for mining disturbance of more than 5 acres, the BLM has the authority only to require no

“undue or unnecessary” degradation in reviewing the Plans of Operation. Because Alternative

C does not include any ACECs, lands in ACECs designated under Alternative A would not be

subject to Plans of Operation protections. Therefore, Warm Springs Canyon Flume and any

known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites would be only minimally protected from the impacts of

locatable mineral exploration under Alternative C. However, the likelihood for locatable mineral

exploration around most of these sites would be low.

Alternative C authorizes leasing on 13,207 more acres for fluid minerals (oil and gas) exploration

than Alternative A. This would protect fewer cultural resources from potential disturbances than

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources
1002 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative A. Alternative C also would result in more adverse impacts to sites where setting is

considered important. Warm Springs Canyon Flume and all known spiritual/sacred/traditional

sites are open with moderate constraints and potentially open to adverse impacts, especially

because several known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites are in areas with high potential for oil

and gas. Since there is only standard need to conduct tribal consultation, Alternative C would

have the same impacts to cultural resources as Alternative A. Far more areas are open to oil and

gas leasing than under Alternative B, so that the adverse impacts from oil and gas operations

would be far more likely to occur. However, Warm Springs Canyon Flume is in an area with

very low potential for oil and gas, so the likelihood of impacts to that site from fluid minerals

exploration would be low.

Leasable solid minerals and mineral materials are less restricted under Alternative C than under

Alternative A. For phosphates, Alternative C closes 32,255 fewer acres. For mineral materials,

Alternative C closes 87,605 fewer acres. Known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites in places such as

the Lander Slope would not be protected under Alternative C and would be subject to adverse

impacts, especially from mineral materials disposal or phosphate leasing. However, Warm

Springs Canyon Flume is closed from mineral material disposal and phosphate leasing.

Alternative C restricts wind-energy development, mines, and major ROWs to a lesser extent than

Alternative A, which would adversely impact heritage resources. This alternative protects only a

few cultural resources in the planning area from the impacts of wind-energy development and

major ROWs; Warm Springs Canyon Flume and known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites are

not protected under Alternative C and would be subject to adverse impacts. The potential for

large industrial plants and transmission lines near some of the known spiritual/sacred/traditional

sites would be high; the potential for highly visible projects near Warm Springs Canyon Flume

would be low.

Under Alternative C, impacts to cultural resources from recreation management would be the

same as under Alternative A.

4.5.1.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not include any ACECs or recommend any waterway segments as suitable

for inclusion in the NWSRS. This opens the ACEC areas and waterway segment corridors to

development; impacts to cultural resources would be more likely under this alternative. Some of

the areas protected as ACECs under alternatives A and B are known to contain heritage resources,

so this loss of protection would be an adverse impact. Under Alternative C, Congressionally

Designated Trails are generally protected to 1⁄4 mile on each side, except for locatable minerals.

For locatable minerals, this alternative removes withdrawals and opens the lands along NHTs to

unrestricted mining. Alternative C manages WSAs the same as Alternative A, which would limit

surface disturbances in these areas and indirectly protect cultural resources through avoidance.

Sites where setting is important would not be protected, except for NHTs, and neither Warm

Springs Canyon Flume nor any known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites would be protected.

Alternative C applies no special management to the Beaver Rim or Green Mountain expanded

areas, so adverse impacts to cultural resources would likely occur, particularly in the area of

the Rim itself.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1003

4.5.1.3.5. Alternative D

4.5.1.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D includes more proactive management of cultural resources than alternatives A and

C, but less than Alternative B. This alternative would better prevent impacts to important sites

than management under Alternative A, including a wider range of sites where setting is important

and where spiritual/sacred/traditional sites are present. Alternative D includes more protections to

Warm Springs Canyon Flume and known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites, although not to the

same degree as Alternative B. Alternative D requires tribal consultation if oil and gas operations

will disturb lands near sacred and Native American sites. Required Design Features for the

protection of wildlife will limit the location and extent of surface disturbance, which would benefit

cultural resources. Although the Required Design Features are more limiting of development than

Alternative A or C, they are less so than the protections afforded under Alternative B.

4.5.1.3.5.2. Resources

Like alternatives A and C, Alternative D specifies that air quality management will minimize

adverse impacts to air quality, but will allow emissions up to current air quality standards. This

is the minimum management level; it will result in more adverse impacts to cultural resources

than Alternative B, which would result in more beneficial impacts to cultural resources, including

setting. To the extent that particulate matter is caustic, such as calcium chloride used on road

surfaces, fugitive dust from development activities and transportation could adversely impact

cultural resources such as rock art.

Alternative D management of soil and water is generally the same as Alternative A in terms

of limiting surface disturbance; therefore, it would result in the same beneficial and adverse

impacts to cultural resources, although to a greater degree because surface disturbance is more

limited. There would be fewer beneficial impacts under Alternative D than under Alternative B

and somewhat more than under Alternative C.

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of lands with wilderness

characteristics under Alternative D would provide additional protections for cultural resources

that would not result under Alternative A or C. Therefore, impacts under Alternative D would

be more beneficial than under Alternative A. Although Alternative D manages a smaller area

as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to protect wilderness characteristics than

Alternative B, 4,954 acres versus 5,490 acres, it is not likely that this difference would result in

substantially different impacts. This is because the areas excluded under Alternative D would

be managed to support the wilderness characteristics of not only the Little Red Creek Complex

but also the Whiskey Mountain ACEC. Alternative D would result in substantially more

beneficial impacts than Alternative C. Not only does Alternative C not manage for wilderness

characteristics, it also protects only the bighorn sheep habitat on Whiskey Mountain with standard

stipulations (see Special Designations); therefore, there would be no “spill-over” protections

for the Little Red Creek Complex.

Alternative D specifies that the full range of fire suppression tactics be used based on resources at

risk. This would result in somewhat fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B or Alternative

C, which use full suppression and rely on informing firefighters in advance of at-risk cultural

resources. Alternative D would be likely to result in more beneficial impacts than Alternative A,

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources
1004 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

which operates on a case-by-case basis and includes no advance notification for at-risk cultural

resources. Identifying cultural resources in advance and having the fire program aware of

their locations would be more protective of important resources than Alternative A, and would

prevent adverse impacts from fire suppression activities. However, full suppression could result

in long-term adverse impacts to cultural resources to the extent that this management technique

increases the potential for landscape-level fire, which would exceed fire suppression efforts to

protect cultural resources.

Alternative D classifies approximately 1 million more acres of BLM surface as VRM Classes I

and II than Alternative A, and would protect more cultural resources from the introduction of

modern visual intrusions. This would be especially beneficial to sites where setting is considered

important. Warm Springs Canyon Flume is in a VRM Class II area under Alternative D, which

would better protect the historic settings of this site than would alternatives A and C. However, no

known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites would be protected because none are in Class I or II areas.

For these types of sites, the impacts of Alternative D would be the same as under Alternative A.

Alternative D protections for riparian-wetland resources are the same as Alternative A, slightly

more restrictive than Alternative C, and substantially less restrictive than Alternative B. Therefore,

Alternative B would result in the most beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland areas, areas with

high potential for cultural properties, than any other alternative. Alternative D, like alternatives A

and C, would result in more adverse impacts to cultural resources by allowing surface-disturbing

activities on approximately 125,403 more riparian-wetland acres than Alternative B.

In general, restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g.,

soil, water, biological, and visual resources) are greatest under Alternative B, with alternatives A,

C, and D providing substantially fewer protections for cultural resources.

Management for wildlife protection is stronger and applied to more areas under Alternative D

although less so than Alternative B. This management, discussed in more detail under Resource

Uses below, would beneficially impact cultural resources.

4.5.1.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D proposes to withdraw 425,935 more acres of mineral estate from locatable

mineral entry than Alternative A. Alternative D protects more cultural resources from potential

disturbances than Alternative A, much more than Alternative C, and substantially fewer than

Alternative B. Withdrawals protect more sites where setting is considered important. Around

Warm Springs Canyon Flume, Alternative D proposes to withdraw the same number of acres

from locatable minerals as alternatives A and C, and 283 fewer than Alternative B. This would

result in more adverse impacts to the historic setting around the flume than Alternative B, but the

low mineral potential could make this impact less substantial. The withdrawals in the Lander

Front-Hudson-South Pass area would protect the extensive cultural resources, including historic

trails, rock art, and Native American sacred sites and their settings. This management provides

the same benefits to cultural resources as Alternative B, although to a smaller area.

Some known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites are in withdrawn areas and are protected under

Alternative D, but many fewer than under Alternative B. The likelihood of locatable mineral

exploration around these unprotected spiritual/sacred/traditional sites would be low, but in a

few cases it is possible and would result in a substantial risk of adverse impacts. However, the

beneficial impacts of the new withdrawals would not apply to areas with existing mining claims,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1005

because this management would not change preexisting rights. However, over time the claims

could expire and then be withdrawn.

Alternative D closes 141,438 more acres of mineral estate to fluid minerals leasing than

Alternative A, 166,496 more acres than Alternative C, and 2,112,951 fewer acres than

Alternative B. Closing an area to surface use protects cultural resources from potential

disturbances, especially where setting is considered important. Under Alternative D, some known

spiritual/sacred/traditional sites are in NSO areas and are protected, but some are not and would

be subject to more adverse impacts because they are in areas with high potential areas for oil and

gas. In comparison, no spiritual/sacred/traditional sites would be protected under alternatives A

and C, and more such sites would be protected under Alternative B. Areas managed as closed

or NSO under Alternative D to protect wildlife, viewsheds, and other resources in the Dubois

area and the Lander Front-Hudson-South Pass areas would beneficially impact cultural resources.

The application of Required Design Features that would limit the size and extent of disturbance

associated with development provides further benefits (or avoids further adverse impacts)

associated with that disturbance.

Alternative D management of the important parturition areas on the south side of the Green

Mountain ACEC and Beaver Rim will beneficially impact the cultural resources in the area.

Requiring tribal consultation would avoid adverse impacts to Native American sites.

Leasable solid minerals and mineral materials disposals are only slightly less restricted under

Alternative D than Alternative B and far more protective of cultural resources than either

Alternative A or C. Most known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites and Warm Springs Canyon

Flume are closed to mineral materials disposals and phosphate leasing under Alternative D;

therefore, those sites would not be subject to adverse impacts.

Alternative D restricts wind-energy development, mines, power plants, gas plants, and major

ROWs to a much greater extent than Alternative A, substantially more than Alternative C, and

less than Alternative B. Alternative D protects many cultural resources from the impacts of

wind-energy development, large mines, and ROWs, including Warm Springs Canyon Flume and

known spiritual/sacred/traditional sites, although to a lesser extent than Alternative B. Although

Alternative D utilizes avoidance of areas that are excluded to ROWs under Alternative B, the

adverse impacts to cultural resources by such management would be reduced by the application

of avoidance criteria. Even the use of designated corridors would still require cultural resource

clearances and mitigation. Concentrating disturbance in corridors would more severely impact

cultural resources in those locations or the setting of other resources outside of the actual

disturbance, where setting is important.

Impacts from recreation management would be the same under Alternative D as under

Alternative A, except that Alternative D, like Alternative B, withdraws Johnny Behind the Rocks.

Alternatives A, B, and D recreation management would result in more beneficial impacts to

cultural resources than Alternative C, which favors development over recreation.

4.5.1.3.5.4. Special Designations

ACECs, Congressionally Designated Trails, NWSRS-eligible waterway segments recommended

as suitable WSRs, and WSAs in the planning area limit surface disturbances in various ways.

These limits include NSO for oil and gas development, mining withdrawals or Plans of Operation,

and ROW avoidance. These prescriptions protect cultural resources through avoiding disturbances

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources
1006 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

to cultural resources in those areas. Significant historic settings are protected to a certain extent

as well, depending on the size of the protected area. Under Alternative D, 243,838 acres of

ACECs close or limit surface disturbance, 5 percent more of the planning area than Alternative A,

but 52 percent less of the planning area than Alternative B. Alternative C does not include any

ACECs, and therefore only standard stipulations on surface disturbance, which would result in

substantially more adverse impacts to cultural resources, would apply.

Alternative D does not manage either Cedar Ridge or Castle Gardens as ACECs, and therefore

would result in fewer beneficial impacts to cultural resources than Alternative B. However,

Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts to these two significant cultural sites than

Alternative A, and substantially more than Alternative C. Neither Warm Springs Canyon Flume

nor any known other spiritual/sacred/traditional sites would be protected in this manner, because

none of them are in existing or proposed ACECs, Congressional Designated Trails, or WSAs.

Alternative D management of Congressionally Designated Trails would be less beneficial to

cultural resources than Alternative B, but would result in substantially more beneficial impacts

to non-trail resources than Alternative A or C. Alternative C would result in substantially more

adverse impacts to cultural resources because of its management of the CDNST, which requires

that the trail be moved if there is a conflict with another use. This management would have the

effect of increasing disturbance, which would adversely impact cultural resources.

Although Alternative D does not manage either the expanded Beaver Rim or the Green Mountain

areas as ACECs, the special management applied to both those areas will limit adverse impacts

from oil and gas operations.

4.5.2. Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources are defined as any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of organisms,

preserved in or on the Earth’s crust, that are of paleontological interest and that provide

information about the history of life on Earth. If these resources are found to be scientifically

significant, federal regulations require that impacts to them be assessed and impact mitigation

measures be instituted to help protect them.

Adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources typically result in a loss of information

and/or a loss of integrity of the resource. Adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources

on BLM-administered lands include actions that physically damage or destroy all or parts of

a resource and lack of protective action, which can result in resource deterioration. Adverse

impacts to paleontological resources also result from increases in access to areas containing

paleontological resources, which can lead to increases in use, erosion, looting, and vandalism.

Paleontological resources are important for their scientific-data potential. Adverse impacts to

these resources are considered long-term, because once the resources are damaged or disturbed,

impacts cannot be reversed.

Beneficial impacts to paleontological resources result from special management measures that

can enhance the quality of a resource. Stabilization and recovery of paleontological resources

and information are examples of long-term beneficial impacts. Erosion control at paleontological

localities is another example of beneficial impacts. The beneficial impacts of erosion-control

measures would be long-term, but eventually, adverse natural and/or human influences would

require more measures to keep paleontological resources from degrading.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Paleontological Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1007

4.5.2.1. Summary of Impacts

Impacts to paleontological resources vary by alternative. Alternatives A, B, and C are similar

in their protections; Alternative B provides the most protection, followed by Alternative D, and

then alternatives A and C. As for specific resources, Alternative B provides for management to

protect the Beaver Rim, Bison Basin, Bonneville to Lost Cabin, Lander Slope, and Gas Hills

paleontological areas; alternatives A and C manage those resources on a project-specific basis.

4.5.2.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● 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 to 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.

● Vertebrate fossils continue to be found throughout the Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary units

exposed in the planning area. The Wind River and Bridger Formations are the most important

geologic formations for significant paleontological resources, but several sedimentary

formations are known to contain important fossils.

● Surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities can dislocate or damage previously

undiscovered significant paleontological resources (i.e., unanticipated discoveries) but may

also result in their discovery. Destruction of these resources results in a loss of scientific

information and precludes interpretation of the resource values to the public.

● Surveys required before surface disturbance in areas known or suspected to contain significant

paleontological resources can result in the identification and evaluation of previously

undiscovered resources. In addition, continuing scientific research in the planning area will

identify new paleontological resources. The BLM will then manage these newly discovered

resources accordingly.

● The number of paleontological resources affected by various actions correlates directly to the

degree, nature, and quantity of surface-disturbing activities in the planning area.

4.5.2.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.5.2.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Surface disturbance, neglect, erosion, natural deterioration, and looting and vandalism frequently

impact paleontological resources in the planning area. The most common cause of impacts is

surface disturbance, especially in areas of industrial development. The more mineral and realty

activities likely to occur, the more impacts to paleontological resources are likely.

Standard procedures have been developed to help address impacts to significant paleontological

resources, and include archival research, on-the-ground inventories, locality recordation and

evaluation, data recovery excavations, condition assessments, stabilization, and, in certain cases,

avoidance. These standard procedures can protect paleontological resources from damage where

paleontological resources are known or discovered. All of the alternatives are guided by these

standard procedures.

However, implementing standard procedures does not ensure the identification of all

paleontological resources before they are affected. This happens when paleontological resources

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Paleontological Resources
1008 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

are buried and are not visible from the surface. These resources are often only discovered after

surface-disturbing activities have uncovered them, and construction activities can quickly and

severely damage them and result in the loss of much data. This happens regularly in the planning

area because paleontological resources are often buried by sediments and soils. In such cases,

mitigation of impacts to significant paleontological resources usually entails data recovery and

salvage excavations. These excavations are designed to retrieve the remaining data from the

locality and study the data to determine what kinds of organisms lived there in the past.

The standard procedures also do not apply to small locatable mineral exploration projects.

Locatable minerals exploration projects of fewer than five acres are subject to the 43 CFR 3809

“Notice of Intent” regulations, which offer minimal protections to paleontological resources.

These operations do not require BLM approval, and fossil localities may be adversely impacted if

mining operations proceed.

Another impact to paleontological resources common to all alternatives results from increased

public use of lands, which can result for several reasons, including improved access to formerly

remote areas, which is common in areas where development allows for the creation of new

roads; the increased popularity and availability of OHVs, which also allows access to formerly

remote areas; and increased public interest in paleontological sites or areas. As public use of

lands increases, so does the impact to paleontological resources. As there is more use, more

paleontological resources are visited or driven over, and some of these resources are looted or

vandalized. These impacts would occur under any of the alternatives because access, OHV use,

and public use and interest are all expected to increase.

The limitations on the use of prescribed fire and full suppression described in the Cultural

Resources section would be equally true for paleontological resources.

4.5.2.3.2. Alternative A

4.5.2.3.2.1. Program Management

When development projects are proposed that could affect paleontological resources, reactive

paleontological resource management uses the standard procedures to protect important

paleontological resources. Proactive management protects important resources that are not

threatened by development but still require measures to maintain or enhance their significant

qualities. Alternative A uses reactive management to address impacts on a case-by-case basis,

and uses proactive management to address impacts to localities such as Beaver Rim, Lander

Slope, and Gas Hills. Proactive management is necessary to protect or stabilize these localities

and maintain their important qualities, which are threatened by natural or human-caused actions.

No special management is applied to the Beaver Rim area outside of the ACEC.

4.5.2.3.2.2. Resources

Under Alternative A, building fire lines with heavy equipment could impact paleontological

resources. Current management for wildfires is not well positioned to protect these resources,

because information on the locations of paleontological resources likely to be damaged or

destroyed is not readily available to fire personnel. Resource advisors are consulted on some fires,

but they cannot be everywhere on fires as they happen. Significant paleontological locality

information is currently kept confidential, so these resources could inadvertently be impacted.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Paleontological Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1009

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water,

biological resources, and special designations) under Alternative A provide additional protection

for paleontological resources.

4.5.2.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A provides mostly minimal protection from locatable mineral exploration, except

where there are withdrawals or ACECs. Locatable mineral regulations do not follow the standard

paleontological resource protection measures described above and, unless the exploration project

covers more than 5 acres or is in an ACEC, paleontological resources are subject to little

protection from the impacts of mining. Alternative A pursues withdrawals on 23,114 acres and

retains all existing ACECs, which would protect some paleontological resources. The Bison

Basin, Bonneville to Lost Cabin, and Gas Hills paleontological areas are minimally protected

under Alternative A and would be subject to impacts from mineral exploration, while the Beaver

Rim and Lander Slope paleontological areas are in ACECs and would be better protected from

impacts of locatable minerals exploration.

Impacts to paleontological resources from leasable fluid minerals, leasable solid minerals, mineral

materials disposals, and ROWs are better controlled under Alternative A than impacts from

locatable minerals exploration. Standard procedures under these programs (described above

under Impacts Common to All Alternatives) provide for the study, retrieval, and, in some cases,

avoidance of paleontological resources. Field inventories, construction monitoring, evaluation of

resources, and impacts mitigation are routinely performed for these types of projects, and most

paleontological resource sites are adequately studied, collected, and/or protected.

Paleontological resources in the Beaver Rim area could be adversely impacted by oil and gas

development because of limited protections.

4.5.2.3.2.4. Special Designations

Most ACECs, Congressionally Designated Trails, and WSAs in Alternative A limit surface

disturbances in various ways. These limits include NSO for oil and gas development, mining

Plans of Operation, and avoidance of major ROWs. These prescriptions indirectly protect

paleontological resources. The Beaver Rim and Lander Slope paleontological areas are in ACECs

and would therefore be protected, while the Bison Basin, Bonneville to Lost Cabin, and Gas Hills

paleontological areas would not. The Beaver Rim and Green Mountain areas outside of the

ACECs could be adversely impacted through unrestricted development.

4.5.2.3.3. Alternative B

4.5.2.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B includes more proactive management than Alternative A, which would benefit

important fossil localities in the planning area. Alternative B also includes more attention to

important paleontological areas like Beaver Rim, Bison Basin, Bonneville to Lost Cabin, Lander

Slope, and Gas Hills.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Paleontological Resources
1010 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.5.2.3.3.2. Resources

Fire management under Alternative B protects paleontological resources more than Alternative

A. Under Alternative B, management plans will be written for areas with high for potential

paleontological areas. These plans will be coordinated with fire personnel and will be used to

protect fossil localities when fire suppression activities are needed in these areas.

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water,

biological resources, and special designations) are greatest under Alternative B, which would

provide additional protection for paleontological resources and reduce adverse impacts.

4.5.2.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B proposes to withdraw 1,609,491 more acres of mineral estate from locatable mineral

entry than Alternative A. This would protect more paleontological resources from potential

disturbances. Lands withdrawn from locatable minerals entry around the Lander Slope, Beaver

Rim, and Bison Basin areas would provide more protection for these areas than under Alternative

A. However, Alternative B does not propose to withdraw the Bonneville to Lost Cabin and Gas

Hills areas, and those areas would receive fewer protections.

Alternative B closes 1,851,349 more surface acres to leasable fluid minerals exploration than

Alternative A, and this would protect more paleontological resources from potential disturbances.

Lands closed to leasable fluid minerals exploration around the Lander Slope, Beaver Rim, and

Bison Basin areas would provide more protection for these areas than Alternative A. However,

Alternative B does not close the Bonneville to Lost Cabin and Gas Hills areas, and those areas

receive fewer protections.

Both the Beaver Rim and Green Mountain areas are closed to oil and gas leasing and would

therefore have far more beneficial impacts to the paleontological resources located in those

areas in comparison to Alternative A.

Leasable solid minerals and mineral materials disposal are more restricted under Alternative B

than under Alternative A. Approximately 2 million acres are closed to each of these uses under

Alternative B, while Alternative A closes approximately 229,014 acres to mineral materials

disposal and 154,106 acres to phosphate leasing. Most identified paleontological areas are closed

to mineral materials disposal and phosphate leasing under Alternative B, so those areas would

not be subject to impacts.

Alternative B restricts wind-energy development and major ROWs much more than Alternative

A. Alternative B protects most paleontological resources in the planning from adverse impacts of

wind-energy development and major ROWs, including most of the Lander Slope, Beaver Rim,

Bison Basin, Bonneville to Lost Cabin, and Gas Hills paleontological areas.

4.5.2.3.3.4. Special Designations

ACECs, Congressionally Designated Trails, and WSAs in the planning area limit surface

disturbances in various ways, including NSO restrictions for oil and gas development, mining

Plans of Operation, and avoidance of major ROWs. These prescriptions indirectly protect

paleontological resources. Alternative B expands five existing ACECs and designates six

additional ACECs. This would enhance the protection of paleontological resources in several

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Paleontological Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1011

parts of the planning area. However, the Bison Basin, Bonneville to Lost Cabin, and Gas Hills

paleontological areas would not be protected by any of these special designations, because none

of them are in existing or proposed ACECs, Congressional Designated Trails, or WSAs under

this alternative.

The expansion of the Beaver Rim and Green Mountain ACECs would beneficially impact

paleontological resources by prohibiting oil and gas development. However, the knowledge

of the resources that is gained through surface disturbance would not occur as it would under

Alternative A.

4.5.2.3.4. Alternative C

4.5.2.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C includes somewhat less proactive management than Alternative A. Alternative

C would give less attention to the Beaver Rim and Bison Basin paleontological areas, so

deterioration would be expected to continue in those areas.

4.5.2.3.4.2. Resources

Fire management under Alternative C would be the same as under Alternative A, and would result

in the same impacts to paleontological resources.

Because Alternative C places a greater emphasis on resource use, there are fewer restrictions on

surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water, biological

resources, and special designations). Therefore, there would be more adverse impacts to

paleontological resources than under alternatives A and B.

4.5.2.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C provides minimal protection for paleontological resources from adverse impacts of

locatable mineral exploration. This alternative proposes to withdraw 23,114 fewer acres of federal

mineral estate from locatable mineral entry than Alternative A, which would protect fewer fossil

resources from potential disturbances. Locatable mining regulations do not follow the standard

paleontological resource protection measures described above, and, unless the exploration

project covers more than 5 acres, paleontological resources are subject to little protection from

the adverse impacts of mining. Also, because this alternative does not include ACECs, lands in

ACECs under other alternatives would not be subject the protections of Plans of Operation. None

of the identified paleontological resource areas are more than minimally protected from the

impacts of locatable mineral exploration under this alternative.

Alternative C authorizes leasable fluid minerals exploration on 13,207 more acres than

Alternative A; this would protect fewer paleontological resources from potential disturbances. All

identified paleontological resource localities are open with moderate constraints and would be

subject to adverse impacts. Alternative C does not apply an MLP in the Beaver Rim area and

would therefore not result in the beneficial impacts to paleontological resources that occur under

Alternative D from management of the Beaver Rim MLP.

Leasable solid minerals and mineral materials are less restricted under Alternative C than under

Alternative A. For phosphates, Alternative C closes 32,255 fewer acres than Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Paleontological Resources
1012 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

For mineral materials, Alternative C closes 87,605 fewer acres than Alternative A. Identified

paleontological localities are not protected under this alternative and would be subject to adverse

impacts from these resource uses.

Alternative C includes fewer restrictions on wind-energy developments, mines, and major ROWs

than Alternative A. This alternative protects only a few fossil resources in the planning area from

impacts caused by these kinds of developments. Known identified paleontological areas are not

protected and would be subject to adverse impacts from these activities.

4.5.2.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not include ACECs and does not recommend any NWSRS-eligible waterway

segments as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS. This opens these areas to development,

which would subject paleontological resources to adverse impacts. Under Alternative C,

Congressionally Designated Trails are generally protected to 1⁄4 mile on each side, except for

locatable minerals entry. For locatable minerals entry, this alternative removes withdrawals

and opens the lands along NHTs to unrestricted mining. None of the identified paleontological

areas would be protected, including in the Beaver Rim and Green Mountain areas. However,

Alternative C manages WSAs the same as Alternative A, which would limit surface disturbances

in these areas, and would indirectly protect paleontological resources through avoidance.

4.5.2.3.5. Alternative D

4.5.2.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D includes more proactive management with more restrictions on development than

Alternative A or C, but less than Alternative B. This would further prevent adverse impacts

to important fossil localities in the planning area, but the focus under Alternative D would be

primarily on significant paleontological resources rather than all resources, as under Alternative

B. Alternative D management of important paleontological areas like Beaver Rim, Bison Basin,

Bonneville to Lost Cabin, Lander Slope, and Gas Hills would be more protective of resources

than Alternative A, but less protective than Alternative B, which closes these areas to leasing.

The MLP adopted for the Beaver Rim area would prioritize inventories in the area. Required

Design Features for surface-disturbing activities would limit the size and scope of development,

which benefits the paleontological program.

4.5.2.3.5.2. Resources

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil,

water, biological resources, and special designations) are greatest under Alternative B, which

would provide additional protections for paleontological resources and reduce adverse impacts.

Alternative D management of soil, water, and riparian-wetland areas would result in beneficial

impacts to paleontological resources similar to those under Alternative A, and slightly more

beneficial than those under Alternative C. Alternative D impacts would be substantially more

adverse than impacts under Alternative B, which closes 125,403 more riparian-wetland acres to

surface disturbance. Under Alternative D, FMPs will be written for areas with high potential

for paleontological resources. These plans will be coordinated with fire personnel and used to

protect significant fossil localities when fire suppression activities are needed in these areas.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Paleontological Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1013

Impacts to paleontological resources under Alternative D would be similar to but less beneficial

than under Alternative B.

Limitations on disturbance to protect wildlife, which also protect paleontological resources,

are less in Alternative D than B, but greater than Alternative A and substantially more than

Alternative C. The Core Area Strategy and the management to benefit resources in the Lander

Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area would strongly benefit paleontological resources, and Alternative

D is second only to Alternative B in these protections. However, development would still be

authorized, with resulting adverse impacts to paleontological resources.

4.5.2.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D proposes to withdraw 425,935 more acres of mineral estate from locatable mineral

entry than Alternative A, 449,068 more acres than Alternative C, and 72 percent fewer acres in

the planning area than Alternative B. Withdrawal protects an area from locatable mineral entry

and mineral materials disposal, so the more acres withdrawn, the more beneficial impacts to

paleontological resources because they are protected from potential disturbances. However,

Alternative D would result in many fewer beneficial impacts to paleontological resources than

Alternative B because it does not propose to withdraw lands from locatable minerals around the

Bison Basin areas. No alternative proposes to withdraw the important paleontological areas of

Bonneville to Lost Cabin in the north end of the planning area and Gas Hills, so these areas would

receive fewer protections.

Alternative D closes or manages with major constraints 694,348 more acres to mineral leasing

than Alternative A and 1,125,193 fewer acres than Alternative B. Accordingly, Alternative D

would result in substantially fewer beneficial impacts to paleontological resources than Alternative

B, but many more than Alternative C and somewhat more than Alternative A. The closing of

Dubois to leasing under Alternative D would beneficially impact paleontological resources similar

to Alternative B, would be more beneficial than Alternative A, and substantially more beneficial

than Alternative C. The Beaver Rim MLP prioritizes information gathering of the paleontologic

resources which would result in beneficial impacts in comparison to alternatives A and C.

Alternative D management of leasable solid minerals and mineral materials disposals would

result in more beneficial impacts to paleontological resources than Alternative A or C and almost

as many beneficial impacts as Alternative B, because Alternative D closes so many acres with

phosphate potential to leasing. Mineral material disposals would be allowed in some greater

sage-grouse Core Area although much less than under Alternative A. Because mineral material

sales are discretionary, sales that would adversely impact other resources such as paleontological

resources would be avoided or mitigated.

Alternative D’s ROW management is more similar to Alternative B but to a much less protective

extent. Fewer areas are excluded and more avoided for ROWs. Alternative D also designates far

more corridors. To the extent that more corridors facilitate co-location of major ROWs, impacts

to paleontological resources in general would be reduced but areas within the corridors would be

more severely impacted. Designation of corridors does not cause ROWs to be requested; ROWs

are part of other programs such as an increase in mineral development leads to an increase in

ROWs. Therefore designation of corridors does not result, in and of itself, in any impacts to

paleontological resources.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Paleontological Resources
1014 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative D restricts wind-energy development and major ROWs to a much greater degree than

Alternative A or C, but less than Alternative B, particularly along Congressionally Designated

Trails (see below). Like Alternative B, Alternative D protects many paleontological resources in

the planning area from the impacts of wind-energy development and major ROWs, including

most of the Lander Slope and Beaver Rim. Alternative D does not protect other areas, such as

the Bonneville to Lost Cabin and Gas Hills important paleontological areas, from wind-energy

development. However, these areas have low potential for wind-energy development, so the

difference in impacts between alternatives D and B might not be substantial.

4.5.2.3.5.4. Special Designations

ACECs, Congressionally Designated Trails, WSRs, and WSAs limit surface disturbances in

various ways, including NSO restrictions for oil and gas development, viewshed protections, and

avoidance of major ROWs. These prescriptions indirectly protect paleontological resources.

Alternative D manages 52 percent less of the planning area as ACECs than Alternative B, but 5

percent more of the planning than Alternative A. Alternative D ACEC prescriptions would be

more protective of paleontological resources than Alternative A. Like alternatives A and B,

Alternative D maintains the original Beaver Rim area as an ACEC, which would beneficially

affect the area’s important paleontological resources. Although the expansions of the Beaver Rim

and Green Mountain ACECs are not designated, the application of the MLP in the Beaver Rim

area and the application of an NSO stipulation in the Green Mountain area will beneficially

impact the resources in those area.

Alternative D would result in substantially more beneficial impacts to paleontological resources

than Alternative C, which manages ACEC areas identified in other alternatives with standard

stipulations. Standard stipulations provide no protection to paleontological resources other than

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act protections. Alternative D ACEC designations protect

80,832 acres of significant paleontological areas. However, the Bison Basin, Bonneville to Lost

Cabin, and Gas Hills paleontological areas would not receive protections in this manner because

none of them are in existing or proposed ACEC, Congressionally Designated Trails, or WSAs.

Alternative D management of Congressionally Designated Trails would result in fewer beneficial

impacts to paleontological resources than Alternative B, but substantially more than Alternative A

or C, because alternatives B and D close many more areas to surface disturbance for the protection

of trails settings. Management of the CDNST under Alternative A, B, or D would result in more

beneficial impacts to paleontological resources management than under Alternative C, which

requires moving the trail if there are conflicts with other resource uses. Moving the trail would

increase surface disturbance and the potential to adversely impact paleontological resources.

4.5.3. Visual Resources

4.5.3.1. Summary of Impacts

VRM Classes establish a measurable standard for the amount of change allowed to visual

resources in a specific area. Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) Classes establish the general

value of the landscape in terms of its scenic resources. VRM Classes range from I-IV with

Class I allowing the least amount of change and IV allowing the most amount of change to

the characteristic landscape. VRI Classes also range from I-IV with I being the highest value

scenic resource and IV being the lowest value scenic resource. Comparing and contrasting VRM

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Visual Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1015

Classes to Lander Field Office VRI Classes provides an indicator of the level of impact to visual

resources across the planning area.

Table 4.20, “Visual Resources Inventory and Management Classes by Alternative” (p. 1016) provides a comparative analysis between the acres of VRI Class versus the acres of VRM Classes.

To facilitate impact analysis, VRM Classes represent the allowable levels of impacts (see Chapter

3) and the VRI Classes represent the general value of the landscape, or a baseline. VRI Classes

I or II that are designated as VRM III or IV constitutes an adverse impact to visual resources.

This is due to the fact that such a designation exposes these high value scenic resources to a

management scenario that allows for moderate to high levels of contrast within the existing

environment. Whereas VRI Classes III or IV that are designated as I or II marks a beneficial

impact to visual resources. This is due to the fact that such a designation exposes these lower

value scenic resources to a management scenario that limits the amount of contrast with the

existing landscape. As such, Alterative B would result in the greatest beneficial impact to visual

resources, with Alternative D also benefiting scenic values. Alternative C would have the highest

level of adverse impact on visual resources with nearly 97 percent of VRI Class I and II areas

being managed as VRM Class III or IV. Alternative A has nearly 75 percent of VRI Class I and II

areas being managed as VRM Class III or IV.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Visual Resources
1016 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 4.20. Visual Resources Inventory and Management Classes by Alternative

Inventory Class (IC) Acres

I II III IV

54,682 570,502 849,370 917,485

Management Class

(MC) Designation

Relation of Management Class (MC) To Inventory Class (IC)

MC Acres

Intersect

Acres

Percent

(MC/IC)

Intersect

Acres

Percent

(MC/IC)

Intersect

Acres

Percent

(MC/IC)

Intersect

Acres

Percent

(MC/IC)

Alternative A

I 57,443 54,391 99.47% 2,887 0.51% 83 0.01% 15 0.00%

II 202,785 160 0.29% 117,152 20.53% 66,583 7.84% 18,389 2.00%

III 221,121 90 0.16% 80,178 14.05% 87,574 10.31% 54,054 5.89%

IV 1,853,8

62

42 0.08% 355,248 62.27% 687,850 80.98% 809,348 88.21%

V1 57,995 0 0.00% 15,037 2.64% 7,279 0.86% 35,679 3.89%

Alternative B

I 59,318 54,682 100.00% 4,636 0.81% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

II

1,284,1

22

0 0.00% 565,866 99.19% 565,871 66.62% 152,281 16.60%

III 292,890 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 284,500 33.50% 8,390 0.91%

IV 756,813 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 756,813 82.49%

Alternative C

I 55,360 54,274 99.25% 921 0.16% 83 0.01% 15 0.00%

II 25,730 138 0.25% 14,815 2.60% 10,781 1.27% 0 0.00%

III 722,356 189 0.35% 342,633 60.06% 324,409 38.19% 54,301 5.92%

IV 1,590,7

58

82 0.15% 212,126 37.18% 514,094 60.53% 863,169 94.08%

Alternative D

I 60,115 54,391 99.47% 5,550 0.97% 83 0.01% 15 0.00%

II 780,810 254 0.46% 462,700 81.81% 296,659 34.93% 20,322 2.21%

III 857,979 27 0.05% 102,181 17.91% 483,027 56.87% 272,176 29.67

IV 694,756 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 69,599 8.19% 624,971 68.12%

1VRM Class V no longer exists as a class objective option for managing visual resources. As a result, these areas

are managed as Class IV visual resources under Alternative A.

Source: BLM 2012a

The planning area has several unique scenic features that could experience adverse impacts from

activities authorized under this RMP. Table 4.21, “VRM Class Designation of Sensitive and

Unique Scenic Features in the Lander Planning Area by Alternative” (p. 1017) identifies those

features and the supporting VRM Class designation under each alternative. An alternative that

designates a sensitive and unique scenic feature above Class II represents an adverse impact to

this feature, whereas designating the area as a Class II or higher represents a beneficial impact.

Overall, Alternative B manages the majority of scenic features as VRM Class II, with Alternative

D managing slightly less scenic features as VRM Class II than Alternative B. Alternative C

would result in the most adverse impacts to scenic features by managing most of these areas as

VRM Class III or IV.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Visual Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1017

Table 4.21. VRM Class Designation of Sensitive and Unique Scenic Features in the Lander

Planning Area by Alternative

Sensitive and Unique VRM Class designation by Alternative

Scenic Feature

Inventory Class

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Beaver Rim II, III II, III, IV II III, IV II, III

Rattlesnake Hills IV1

II, III, IV II, IV IV IV

Cedar Ridge/Johnny

Behind the Rocks

II III II IV II

Green Mountain II, III II-IV II III, IV II, III

Red Butte II II, III II III II

Red Canyon II I, II I, II IV I, II

South Pass Historic

Mining District

II, III I-IV II III, IV II

Copper Mountain,

Lysite Mountain

I, III II-IV I, III IV II-IV

Sweetwater Canyon I I I I I

Sweetwater

Rocks/Granite

Mountains/Sentinel

Rocks

I, II I, II, III I, II I, III I, II, III

Table MountainLander

II II, III II III II

Twin Creek II, III II-IV II IV II

Dubois Area I-III II-IV I-III III-IV II

Lander Slope (Eastern

Aspect of the Wind

River Range)

II, III I, II, III II III I, II

Source: BLM 2012a

1 The Rattlesnake Hills was evaluated and found to have Scenic Quality Class B (borderline Class A), seldom

seen from important vantage points, and in the Middle ground (5–15 miles) from important vantage points. The

inventory IV level may not accurately reflect overall visual quality in the area.

VRM Visual Resource Management

4.5.3.2. Methods and Assumptions

This analysis uses VRM Class designations to project impacts to the visual value of the landscape

(as identified in the VRI). VRI Class designations are the baseline for quantifying changes to the

existing visual environment. In addition, the analysis qualifies anticipated impacts under each

alternative to the key visual features described above. Lander Slope (including Red Butte and

Table Mountain), Red Canyon, South Pass Historic Mining Area, and Sweetwater Rocks/Granite

Mountains/Sentinel Rocks are proposed scenic ACECs; the Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern section describes impacts to these key features. The Recreation section addresses

impacts to Cedar Ridge/Johnny Behind the Rocks, Green Mountain, and Sweetwater Canyon as

important recreation features. The Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and Visual

Resources section addresses visual impacts to National Historic and Scenic Trails. This section

addresses impacts to the following scenic features: Beaver Rim (entire feature including the

existing ACEC), the Twin Creek area, and the Dubois area.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● VRM objectives provide for varying degrees of change (impact) to the visual quality of the

landscape. Because VRM planning objectives will be achieved throughout the planning

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Visual Resources
1018 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

period, it is assumed that impacts to visual quality would reach the allowable change levels

described for the various VRM Class objectives.

● VRI Classes I or II that are designated as VRM Class III or IV constitute an adverse impact

to visual resources. This is due to the fact that such a designation exposes these high value

scenic resources to a management scenario that allows for moderate to high levels of contrast

with the existing characteristic landscape. Whereas VRI Classes III or IV that are designated

as VRM I or II marks a beneficial impact to visual resources. This is due to the fact that such a

designation exposes these lower value scenic resources to a management scenario that limits

the amount of contrast with the existing landscape.

● Areas inventoried at high levels of scenic value and managed under lower VRM Class

objectives would, in the long term, assume the characteristics of lower VRM Classes because

surface disturbance and visual intrusions would be allowed to degrade visual/scenic quality

in those areas. Therefore, long-term shifts in scenic quality in the planning area would be

confined to the proposed VRM Classes.

● Surface disturbances will adversely impact visual resources. Surface disturbances will

introduce new visual elements onto the landscape or intensify existing visual elements,

altering the line, form, color, and/or texture that characterize the existing landscape.

● VRM objectives (in Classes I and II) will be reached more effectively and efficiently through

complementary allowable use decisions (e.g., NSOs) that include exception criteria that match

the allowable change levels described for VRM Class objectives.

● Higher visual protections will be afforded to scenic ACECs; therefore designating scenic

ACECs will benefit the visual resource.

4.5.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.5.3.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Common practice in the VRM planning process allows areas projected for intensive resource

uses to be managed as VRM Class IV, despite inventory class information. Reducing acres

in the planning area in higher (I or II) inventory classes to accommodate resource uses would

adversely impact visual resources.

Closing VRM Classes I and II to surface-disturbing activities (subject to exception criteria that

match allowable change levels described in VRM objectives) would preserve and/or protect visual

resources to the extent allowable under the VRM Class objectives, with long-term beneficial

impacts to scenic quality in these areas.

Managing WSAs as a VRM Class I visual resource would benefit visual resources in these areas.

4.5.3.3.2. Alternative A

4.5.3.3.2.1. Program Management

Alternative A designates nearly 100 percent of VRI Class I areas as Management Class I.

Alternative A would result in long-term adverse impacts to visual resources because more acres

(79 percent) of VRI Class II is managed at a lower level of scenic quality protection (VRM

Class III or IV). Alternative A would subject approximately 75 percent of the planning area

to surface-disturbing activities, and in the long term allow moderate to major modifications

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Visual Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1019

to areas with high scenic quality. This would occur in major portions of Beaver Rim, Twin

Creek, and Dubois.

4.5.3.3.2.2. Resources

Often during the planning process areas with resource concerns are assigned a higher VRM

Class than shown in VRI Classes. This allows VRM to complement the objective of protecting

resources. Under Alternative A, 10 percent of VRI Class III or IV area is designated at the higher

management Classes of I and II. This is probably due in part to VRM Class II designation in

the Castle Gardens area. This designation was placed to primarily dovetail VRM with cultural

resource management. The VRM Class II designation in the Castle Gardens area has a beneficial

impact on visual resources because it allows an area inventoried at a lower level to be afforded the

protections of a higher VRM Class.

4.5.3.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A allows for impacts to visual resources that would substantially decrease scenic

quality across the entire planning area. As a result of Alternative A, 77.4 percent of the planning

area is managed at the lowest VRM Class (IV). In addition, this alternative provides for VRM

Classes that are not designated in consideration of the spatial relationship between management

classes. By mapping VRM Classes in this way, Alternative A would allow areas with higher VRM

Classes to be in view of areas with lower VRM Classes. This would allow the visual impacts

associated with VRM Class IV areas to impact neighboring VRM Class II areas. Therefore, it is

assumed that numerous VRM Class I and II areas would be degraded by management activities

in neighboring VRM Class IV areas. Under Alternative A, this impact would occur in all key

visual features. Across the entire planning area, this alternative would allow surface-disturbing

activities to develop major modifications to the existing character of the landscape, create a high

level of change to the characteristic landscape, and dominate the view and be the major focus of

the viewers attention.

Adverse impacts to visual resources in the Beaver Rim area could occur because no MLP is

applied under Alternative A.

4.5.3.3.2.4. Special Designations

The following ACEC designations under Alternative A would protect scenic resources: Red

Canyon, Lander Slope, and Dubois Badlands. ACEC designation would benefit and enhance

visual resources only within the boundaries of these areas. The visual resources in the Beaver

Rim and Green Mountain areas adjacent to the ACECs could be adversely impacted because

those areas are managed with standard oil and gas stipulations.

The Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and Visual Resources section addresses

direct impacts to visual resources associated with Congressionally Designated Trails.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Visual Resources
1020 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.5.3.3.3. Alternative B

4.5.3.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B allows for major modifications to the existing character of the landscape in 31.6

percent of the planning area; this designation only intersects VRI Class IV areas. This would

result in a negligible impact to visual resources, because the designation would not change the

visual quality of the landscape. Alternative B designates the fewest acres as VRM Class IV.

Program management under this alternative would protect important visual resources as identified

in the inventory and function to support landscape-level protection of resources. This alternative

proposes a slight increase in the acreage managed as VRM Class I compared to VRI Class I areas.

This alternative designates 100 percent of the VRI Class II as VRM Class I or II; therefore, this

alternative has the least adverse impact to visual resources. In addition, Alternative B designates

82 percent of VRI Classes III and IV as VRM Class II. These VRM Classes afford a high level of

scenic quality protection on more than half of the planning area. Alternative B would retain most

of the visual landscape in the planning area. All key visual features would be managed as VRM

Class I or II. This alternative would protect more high value visual landscapes than Alternative A,

and would provide improved protection of key visual features in the planning area.

4.5.3.3.3.2. Resources

Resource impacts are similar to those detailed under Alternative A except that Alternative B’s

limitations on surface disturbance for the benefit of greater sage-grouse would limit adverse

impacts to visual resources in a much larger area.

4.5.3.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Common practice in the VRM planning process allows areas projected for intensive resource

uses to be managed as VRM Class IV, despite inventory class information. Reducing acres in

the planning area in higher (I or II) VRI Classes to accommodate resource uses would adversely

impact visual resources. However, this practice does allow for VRM planning decisions to

complement resource use needs, thus avoiding future conflicts between resource use decisions

and VRM.

Alternative B would result in 31.6 percent of the planning area being managed as VRM Class

IV. This designation only encompasses areas inventoried as Class IV. The Class IV area occurs

primarily in a blocked area and is flanked by VRM Class III or higher, which provides VRM

Classes that consider the spatial relationship between management classes. Alternative B would

result in fewer adverse impacts to visual resources from resource uses than Alternative A.

4.5.3.3.3.4. Special Designations

The following ACEC designations under Alternative B would benefit and enhance visual

resources in these areas: Lander Slope (including Red Butte and Table Mountain), Red Canyon,

South Pass Historic Mining Area, and Sweetwater Rocks/Granite Mountains/Sentinel Rocks.

This is more beneficial than Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Visual Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1021

The Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and Visual Resources section addresses

direct impacts to visual resources associated with Congressionally Designated Trails. In addition,

Alternative B prescribes the background zone (5 to 15 miles) of NHTs as VRM Class II. This

results in an increase of Class II visual resources from inventory levels, which would beneficially

impact visual resources associated with trails and non-trails areas.

4.5.3.3.4. Alternative C

4.5.3.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C proposes no increase in the area managed as VRM Class I compared to VRI Class I

areas. This alternative designates 97 percent of VRI Class II and III areas as VRM Class III or

IV. This would allow for major modifications to the existing character of the landscape in more

than 66 percent of the planning area. Under this alternative, VRM Class III and IV areas include

all key visual resource features. The 1.1 percent of the planning area managed as Class II under

Alternative C encompasses only 1⁄4 mile on either side of Congressionally Designated Trails. This

alternative would result in more adverse impacts to visual resources than Alternative A.

4.5.3.3.4.2. Resources

Under Alternative C, the 3.4 percent of the planning area designated as VRM Classes I and II is

based primarily around WSAs and Congressionally Designated Trails. This alternative designates

less area than Alternative A to VRM Classes I and II.

4.5.3.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C would result in more long-term adverse impacts to visual resources than Alternative

A because more acres of VRI Class II would be managed at a lower level of scenic quality

protection (VRM Class IV). Alternative C would subject 66 percent of the planning area to

surface-disturbing activities, and in the long term allow high value scenic areas to assume impacts

characteristic of VRM Class IV. This would occur in major portions of Beaver Rim, Twin

Creek, and Dubois areas.

Adverse impacts to visual resources from standard management in the Beaver Rim and Green

Mountain areas could occur from oil and gas operations.

4.5.3.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not designate any ACECs. This would adversely impact visual resources

in areas designated as ACECs under other alternatives. The Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern section addresses these impacts.

The Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and Visual Resources section addresses

direct impacts to visual resources associated with Congressionally Designated Trails. The areas

designated as expanded ACECs under Alternative B would likely be adversely impacted in the

same manner as under Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Visual Resources
1022 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.5.3.3.5. Alternative D

4.5.3.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D allows for major modifications to the existing character of the landscape on 29

percent of the planning area; this designation only intersects VRI Class IV areas. This would

result in a minor impact to visual resources because the designation would not change the

visual quality of the landscape. This alternative designates fewer acres to VRM Class IV than

Alternative A, but more than Alternative B.

Program management under this alternative would protect important visual resources as identified

in the inventory and function to support landscape-level protection for resources. This alternative

proposes a slight increase in the area managed as VRM Class I compared to VRI Class I areas.

This alternative designates 82 percent of VRI Class II as VRM Class I or II. Approximately 32

percent of VRI Class III and IV is designated as VRM Class I or II. The VRM Class II designation

would beneficially impact visual resources because it would allow areas inventoried at a lower

quality to be afforded the protections of a higher VRM Class. The increase in VRM Classes I

and II would result in more than one third of the planning area being managed at VRM Classes

I and II. Alternative D would retain most of the visual landscape in the planning area. All key

visual features would be managed as VRM Class I or II. Therefore, this alternative would protect

more visual landscapes than Alternative A, and would provide improved protection of key visual

features in the planning area.

4.5.3.3.5.2. Resources

The impacts to visual resources from resource management would be the same as Alternative A.

4.5.3.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Common practice in the VRM planning process allows areas projected for intensive resource

uses to be managed as VRM Class IV, despite inventory class information. Reducing acres in

the planning area in higher (I or II) VRI Classes to accommodate resource uses would adversely

impact visual resources. However, this practice does allow for VRM planning decisions to

complement resource use needs, thus avoiding future conflicts between resource use decisions

and VRM.

This alternative would result in 18 percent of VRI Classes I and II areas being managed as VRM

Class IV; therefore, this alternative would result in fewer adverse impacts to visual resources from

other resource uses than Alternative A but more than Alternative B. Alternative D applies an

MLP to the Beaver Rim area which would beneficially impact the visual resources in the area by

applying an NSO stipulation to the most important visual resources in the area.

4.5.3.3.5.4. Special Designations

The following ACEC designations under Alternative D would benefit and enhance visual

resources in those areas: Lander Slope (including Red Butte and Table Mountain), Red Canyon,

and South Pass Historic Mining Area.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Visual Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1023

The Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and Visual Resources section addresses

direct impacts to visual resources associated with Congressionally Designated Trails. This

alternative prescribes the background zone (5 to 15 miles) of NHTs as VRM Class II. This results

in an increase in the area managed as VRM Class II compared to the VRI Class II area, which

would beneficially impact visual resources associated with trails and non-trails areas.

Visual resources in the expanded Green Mountain ACEC would be beneficially impacted by the

application of an NSO stipulation for the benefit of the elk calving area since surface disturbance,

including building highly visible roads, would be prohibited.

4.6. Land Resources

4.6.1. Lands and Realty

This section describes potential impacts to the lands and realty program from management

alternatives. Included in the lands and realty program are land tenure adjustments (e.g., sales,

exchanges, acquisitions), land use authorizations (i.e., leases, permits, grants), and withdrawals,

classifications, and segregations. Lands and realty actions (land use authorizations) also authorize

ROWs and renewable energy; however, the Rights-of-Way and Corridors and Renewable Energy

sections address impacts to these specific resource uses. This section focuses on how management

actions could impact the lands and realty program by increasing, limiting, or preventing the

potential for realty actions.

The purpose of the lands and realty program is to facilitate management of BLM-administered

lands and resources in the planning area. The program adapts according to changing land

management, resource needs, demand for public land to meet expanding communities and other

public purposes, and other issues. Therefore, lands and realty program actions generally result in

beneficial impacts in the planning area in relation to multiple-use objectives.

Adverse impacts to the lands and realty program result from management actions that reduce

the available land base or make land tenure adjustments or land use authorizations more

difficult. Beneficial impacts to the lands and realty program result from land tenure adjustments

that increase land management efficiency or enhance the management of resources through

consolidation of public lands into more easily managed blocks. Direct impacts to lands and realty

occur when other resources are present, preventing or making it more difficult to complete a

transaction. Mitigating resource values required for a land disposal transaction can require further

lands and realty actions and increase processing costs and timeframes required to complete the

transaction and temporarily delay the transaction. Indirect impacts to the lands and realty program

result from management that subsequently affects realty actions, such as the development of

parcels transferred out of BLM ownership, which can increase, limit, or prevent the potential for

future realty actions. Most impacts to the lands and realty program would be long-term and result

from management that allocates land for land tenure adjustments or land use authorizations over

the course of the planning period.

Impacts that affect the lands and realty program result from management that increases, limits,

or prevents the potential for realty actions. The primary impacts under the alternatives would

be associated with lands identified for potential disposal, acquisition, and withdrawal, and

management that makes realty actions more difficult to complete. In the past, there has been very

little change in land tenure through either disposal or acquisition, and this trend is expected to

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Land Resources
1024 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

continue. Alternative A identifies lands for disposal that, upon review, do not meet the current

requirements for disposal because some might have important resources, such as riparian-wetland

areas or wildlife values. Otherwise, there is very little difference among the alteratives regarding

lands identified for disposal.

4.6.1.1. Summary of Impacts

By Lander Field Office privacy policy, no private lands are identified for acquisition under

any alternative, although lands that have been proposed for exchange have been identified for

disposal. NEPA analysis of any transfer will be completed, allowing for public input.

The Lander Field Office identified certain state lands for exchange to support resource program

objectives. These lands are typically surrounded by BLM-administered public lands and would

be managed in the same manner as the public lands. In 2011, the State of Wyoming Office of

State Lands and Investments and the WGFD identified the state-owned lands on the Lander Front

as suitable for trade for other BLM lands, either in the planning area or elsewhere in Wyoming.

Some of these lands had been nominated for lease of the phosphate minerals thought to be located

there. These lands are located in the areas on the Lander Front designated by the BLM as ACECs

for wildlife and viewshed values. The specifics of the proposal by the State of Wyoming will be

memorialized by a written MOU in 2012. The Lander Field Office will pursue these exchanges

and conduct NEPA analysis on the transaction. To the extent that BLM-administered lands in the

planning area are the subject of the trades and they have not been identified in this land use plan

for disposal, the exchange would require an RMP amendment.

No lands are identified for community expansion under any alternative. Certain areas are

identified for potential R&PP leases, although there are no current proposals for such leases.

These areas are identified in Chapter 2 in the Recreation section and Map 92.

Due to regulatory provisions, decisions regarding whether areas are available for locatable

mineral exploration and development are actions in the lands and realty program. Unlike

decisions that open or close an area to oil and gas leasing which are managed in the oil and gas

program or whether an area is open or closed to livestock grazing which is managed as a range

decision, prohibiting locatable mineral actions is pursued through the lands and realty program.

Accordingly, limits on uranium or bentonite mining are undertaken as a realty action.

The biggest difference among the alternatives is in the segregation of lands to pursue locatable

mineral withdrawal. (For the sake of readability, these lands are discussed here and in other

sections as “withdrawn,” although the RMP action is to identify lands to segregate for purposes

of withdrawal from mineral entry.) See the discussion under Management Actions Common to

All Alternatives at the beginning of Chapter 2 and the Mineral Report for further explanation of

mineral withdrawals.

The procedural action to withdraw or exchange a property is handled through the realty program,

but the reasons for the exchange, disposal, or acquisition and the adverse or beneficial impacts are

primarily to other programs (e.g., withdrawals adversely impact the locatable mineral program).

Specifics of each proposed withdrawal are analyzed in the sections covering the programs that

would initiate the action. For example, withdrawal from locatable mineral entry for protection of

elk in the East Fork ACEC is analyzed in the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern section.

Each resource and use further analyzes the adverse and beneficial impacts of withdrawals on

other resources and resource uses.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Lands and Realty February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1025

Alternative A continues withdrawals identified in the 1987 RMP and withdrawn, but proposes no

new withdrawals. Under Alternative B, 1,632,605 acres (68 percent of the planning area) are

withdrawn. Under Alternative C, no new withdrawals are identified and all existing withdrawals

except for the Yermo threatened and endangered species withdrawal are allowed to expire. Under

Alternative D, 449,068 acres are pursued for withdrawal.

Withdrawals may result in long-term adverse impacts to the lands and realty program by limiting

or restricting lands and realty actions in these areas. Withdrawals revoked or modified could open

these public lands to allocation and management under the mining laws. Opening public lands to

management and allocation would result in long-term impacts to the lands and realty program by

increasing the available land base for land tenure adjustments and land use authorizations.

Table 4.22, “Acreage of Withdrawals in the Lander Planning Area” (p. 1025) summarizes

segregations and withdrawals by alternative in the planning area by the resource they protect.

In some cases, an area is withdrawn for the protection of more than one resource. Therefore,

individual resource withdrawal acres in the table cannot be added to determine total acreage of

withdrawal; the final row of the table shows the total acres of withdrawal for each alternative,

regardless of resource.

Table 4.22. Acreage of Withdrawals in the Lander Planning Area

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Habitat protection 21,862 1,482,580 0 449,068

Cultural or paleontological value

protection

927 563,640 0 352,429

Recreation or visual values and/or

visitor protection

355 169,774 0 449,068

Total Withdrawals 23,114 1,632,605 0 449,068

Note: Values do not sum to total due to overlap.

Source: BLM 2012a

4.6.1.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● The demand for land-tenure adjustments will increase, but BLM's ability to respond to

or to satisfy increased demands for land sales and exchanges will be limited by budget

and personnel constraints into the foreseeable future. However, the number of land use

authorizations will increase over the course of the planning period.

● Land-tenure adjustments (e.g., disposal and acquisition) focus on disposing of scattered

parcels in the planning area to improve management opportunities and increase resource

protection and use.

● Existing withdrawals to other federal agencies (i.e., the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S.

Department of Energy, and the Federal Energy Regulation Commission) will continue and

will not vary by alternative. These lands are not analyzed in this chapter.

● The lands and realty program is a support program rather than an environmental component.

The program responds to requests for authorizations, permits, leases, land tenure adjustments,

etc., from other programs or outside entities. The discussion of impacts to the lands and realty

program under each alternative would be limited to the influences on ROW authorizations

for other permitted activities; that is, whether the impacts of other resource actions would

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Lands and Realty
1026 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

influence or modify the location, size, or design of a given proposal or, in some cases,

preclude approval of a lands and realty action.

● The priority or the urgency associated with any acquisition is established by the resource

program benefiting from the acquisition; funding sources are limited.

● The demand for disposal of public land is very infrequent and primarily to support public

purpose (R&PP) lease. Before any disposals, lands would be examined for the presence

of high-value resources. Lands with high surface values would not be disposed of, or the

disposal would provide for those values to be preserved. Therefore, land disposals would not

substantially impact other resource programs.

● The BLM has received expressions of interest by members of the public to exchange privately

owned property for public lands. The lands identified for BLM disposal are identified on Map

141. BLM has not analyzed impacts of disposal of these lands because other management

decisions to be made in the plan revision will determine whether disposal would be authorized.

For example, one of the parcels identified for disposal is within an ACEC in two alternatives

but not in the other two alternatives. Whether or not the ACEC is designated will be a major

factor to determining whether disposal is appropriate. A site-specific analysis during the

implementation phase will then be made.

● Existing withdrawals will be retained throughout the planning period. Whether existing

withdrawals will be allowed to expire varies among the alternatives.

● Before any disposals, 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.

● Before any potential land disposal, mineral development potential will be evaluated according

to FLPMA sections 206 and 209.

4.6.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

The alternative analysis for the lands and realty program is summarized above in the Summary

of Impacts section. The lands and realty program responds to requests that are based on other

resources, such as a withdrawal from locatable mineral entry for wildlife. The analysis of that

proposal is presented in the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife and Locatable Minerals

sections, not in this section. The BLM analyzes land exchanges on a site-specific basis in response

to inquiries. The BLM did not analyze the pros or cons of any particular exchange in the RMP,

but will do so in response to requests.

4.6.2. Renewable Energy

The May 2001 report of National Energy Policy Development Group (National Energy Policy

Development Group 2001), defines renewable energy as energy obtained from sources that are

essentially inexhaustible (unlike for example, fossil fuel, of which there is a finite supply; see the

Mineral Resources section). Renewable sources of energy include conventional hydroelectric

power, wood, waste, geothermal, wind, photovoltaic, and solar thermal energy.

Renewable energy management actions under the alternatives focus solely on wind energy in the

planning area due to the lack of demand in the near future for development of solar and biomass

energy. The following assumptions support the approach:

The BLM manages geothermal resources as a leasable mineral; therefore the Leasable Minerals –

Geothermal section addresses geothermal resources.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Renewable Energy February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1027

If a solar or other type of renewable project is proposed in the future, it would be analyzed under a

new NEPA document that would evaluate whether an RMP amendment would be required to

approve the action. If the proposal does not meet the objectives of the RMP – for example, a

proposed industrial solar project on the south-facing slope of the Dubois Badlands WSA – the

project could be denied without evaluating an RMP revision because it clearly would not meet

RMP objectives for WSA management. The project could not be approved without an RMP

amendment.

Management actions by alternative for renewable energy include the consideration of renewable

energy projects throughout the planning area, with consideration of other resource values, and

generally to support national energy plans and policies regarding the development of renewable

energy projects.

Management actions that limit, prohibit, or otherwise decrease the potential for wind-energy

development would result in adverse impacts to renewable energy.

Management actions and resource uses that increase the locations with the potential for renewable

energy and do not exclude or avoid wind-energy development would result in beneficial impacts

to wind-energy development.

Direct impacts to wind-energy development include management actions that designate

wind-energy or renewable-energy avoidance and exclusion areas.

Indirect impacts to wind-energy development include management actions that result in

subsequent restrictions, such as management for resource values that require mitigation,

relocation, or denial of authorizations for wind-energy development.

4.6.2.1. Summary of Impacts

The following actions would have a long-term impact to wind-energy development: actions that

prohibit, or otherwise decrease the potential for wind-energy development; ROW avoidance and

exclusion areas; and actions that cannot be mitigated to allow for wind-energy development.

4.6.2.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Future wind-energy development proposals on BLM-administered lands in the planning

area are subject to the decisions and policy developed in the BLM Final Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands

in the Western United States (BLM 2005a) and ROD. The ROD includes policies and BMPs

for minimizing the impacts of wind-energy development on BLM-administered lands. The

Programmatic ROD is broad in scope and does not address most site-specific issues.

● Wind-energy demand and development is expected to increase during the planning period,

directly related to energy prices, national and state policies regarding renewable energy, and

other factors that encourage demand for and development of renewable-energy resources.

● Renewable-energy projects depend on the ability to transmit the energy product. Therefore,

there is a direct relationship between the ability for energy transmission and renewable-energy

project placement.

● Mapping of areas with wind-energy potential is based on a large-scale nationwide mapping

process likely to show a large margin of error if used for specific project location and

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Renewable Energy
1028 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

prioritization of available renewable-energy development sites. Wind-energy potential in the

planning area is described by wind power classification, as shown in Table 4.23, “Wind

Power Classification” (p. 1028). This information is derived from U.S. Department of

Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory wind-energy potential data (NREL 2002).

Wind-power-class areas comprise large geographic areas, within which there are numerous

areas that do not meet the overall resource potential for each wind power class.

Table 4.23. Wind Power Classification

Wind Power Class

Resource

Potential

Wind Power Density

at 50 Meters

(watts per square

meter)

Wind Speed

at 50 Meters

(meters per second)1

Wind Speed

(miles per hour)

2 Marginal 200-300 5.6-6.4 12.5-14.3

3 Fair 300-400 6.4-7.0 14.3-15.7

4 Good 400-500 7.0-7.5 15.7-16.8

5 Excellent 500-600 7.5-8.0 16.8-17.9

6 Outstanding 600-800 8.0-8.8 17.9-19.7

7 Superb >800 >8.8 >19.7

Source: NREL 2002

1 Wind speeds are based on a Weibull k value of 2.0.

> greater than

● Lands in the planning area have varying wind-energy potentials. Approximately 104,707 acres

have been classified for outstanding and superb potential; 1,546,249 acres have been classified

for excellent potential, and 743,254 acres have been classified for good, fair, poor, or marginal

potential. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that only lands with excellent or better

wind potential will be economically feasible for industrial-scale wind-energy generation.

The potential for wind-energy development in the planning area will directly relate to the

proximity of high wind-power classification areas to transmission lines, and the potential to

cause impacts to other resources or resource uses (such as visual resources).

● Ice can accumulate on the blades of wind turbines and occasionally be released. Therefore

this analysis assumes that the design of the wind-energy development will close to human

presence any area necessary to protect human health and safety.

● Wind energy is the most likely type of renewable energy to be developed in the planning area.

● Increased development of wind-generated energy (or other renewable energy) will also

increase the demand for wind-energy development authorizations for transmission lines to

distribute produced energy to the electrical grid.

● Management objectives for other resources and resource uses could limit the location and

development of wind-energy infrastructure in the planning area.

● Wind-energy development proposals will likely be for areas where there are conflicting

resource issues.

Biomass Energy

○ Beetle-killed trees are potential stock to generate electricity, either by direct burning or

by anaerobic digestion (biomass-generated energy). Because there is no infrastructure

for converting the dead trees into energy and because of the large inventory of product

from other areas that have experienced severe tree loss, it is not likely that commercial or

industrial generation of electrical power from biomass will occur in the planning area.

○ Any large-scale use of trees from the public lands would require a site-specific analysis

and would depend on technologies and infrastructure that cannot be analyzed in this EIS.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Renewable Energy February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1029

Solar Energy

○ As indicated by the exclusion of Wyoming from the Programmatic Solar Energy EIS,

Wyoming is not likely to be developed for industrial-scale solar-generated electricity

projects. Future solar energy development will be site-specific and individual/commercial

in scope.

○ On a site-specific basis, solar-generated electricity might be the best source to power

electrical equipment for activities such as range improvements. This type of action is

allowed within the appropriate program, such as the range improvement program or

the wildlife program if a fish gate is being operated, and is not treated as a renewable

energy project.

4.6.2.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.6.2.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Areas in the NLCS are exclusion areas for wind-energy development by programmatic decision.

These areas include WSAs (55,338 acres), the CDNST, NHTs, and eligible and suitable waterway

segments proposed for inclusion in the NWSRS. This will influence the locations of wind-energy

development projects allowed in the planning area.

The Wind Energy EIS ROD did not identify any buffer for trails (both scenic and historic) that

were closed to wind-energy development. Accordingly, the alternatives identify different buffers

based on the objectives associated with each alternative. These vary from 1⁄4 mile on either side to

exclusions for wind-energy development of 20 miles on each side of the NHTs.

Management under all alternatives will preclude the development of wind-energy projects within

the boundaries of NWSRS-eligible waterway segments.

4.6.2.3.2. Alternative A

4.6.2.3.2.1. Program Management

Alternative A opens 2,113,512 acres for wind-energy development. A total of 215,882 acres are

wind-energy exclusion areas and 64,816 acres are wind-energy avoidance areas (Map 97).

4.6.2.3.2.2. Resources

Alternative A soil resource management that avoids disturbing soils with LRP, on slopes, in

riparian-wetland areas, or in groundwater recharge areas would restrict the location of or, in

some cases, preclude the development of wind energy. Even if these areas were available on a

case-by-case basis, it is likely that BMPs or relocation would be required. Approximately 58,179

acres with wind-energy potential are in areas that could be precluded for the protection of soils.

Protections for groundwater recharge areas would limit the location or design of some projects,

and in situations where these areas would not be avoided, additional BMPs would be applied to

prevent contamination of these areas and adversely impact wind-energy development. While

adverse impacts to the renewable energy program, they would not be likely to make development

infeasible.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Renewable Energy
1030 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative A mitigation measures (i.e., seasonal restrictions to protect wildlife resources and

critical habitat) would restrict the timing of surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities, but

would not preclude construction at another time of the year. This wildlife management would not

adversely impact the renewable energy program.

Alternative A management to protect special status plants by creating keep-out zones (exclusion

areas) for wind-energy development would restrict the location and design of wind-energy

facilities and in some locations preclude the placement of turbines. However, the only mapped

site for threatened and endangered plants is for the desert yellowhead (Yermo), a species which is

not in an area considered to have wind-energy potential.

Protection of cultural resources under Alternative A would adversely impact wind-energy

development because mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts could require alternate

locations. The protection of the setting of sacred/spiritual/TCPs (where the setting contributes

to NRHP eligibility) will be achieved through avoidance within 1⁄4 mile of the cultural property.

In some cases, wind-energy development would be precluded because it involves high-profile

structures with a high level of contrast with setting. Paleontological resource management under

Alternative A could restrict the location of wind-energy development to avoid adverse impacts to

paleontological values. The location of these resources could limit the placement of facilities or

require facilities relocation, but would rarely preclude the action as a whole.

VRM Class I and II restrictions would adversely impact wind-energy development under

Alternative A by limiting the amount of contrast that would be allowed. Wind-energy projects

and their related transmission lines are linear and often 400 to 500 feet tall. Limitations on

contrast related to these most restrictive VRM Classes would adversely impact wind-energy

development, although not preclude it depending on a visual contrast simulation. Federal Aviation

Administration requirements for air safety mandate that wind turbines be marked to make them

highly visible. More contrast is allowed in Class III and IV areas, and these areas would be

open to wind-energy development on a case-by-case basis. Acres of VRM Classes under this

alternative are as follows: Class I, 57,443; Class II, 202,785; Class III, 222,121; Class IV,

1,853,862; and Class V, 57,995.

4.6.2.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A management for mineral resources is generally compatible with wind-energy

development and might beneficially impact wind-energy development to the extent that ROWs

are developed in conjunction with oil and gas or uranium development that would be available

for use by wind-energy projects. Travel management that closes areas to motorized vehicle

use would adversely impact wind-energy development; however, the areas closed to motorized

vehicle travel under Alternative A do not have wind-energy potential. Recreation management

precludes or limits ROWs, including wind energy, in developed recreation sites, which would

adversely impact wind-energy development.

Alternative A does not designate any ROW corridors, which would adversely impact wind-energy

development because the transmission line ROWs would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case

basis. However, except for special designations and Beef Gap, Alternative A does not designate

ROW exclusion areas, so there would be no other adverse impacts to wind-energy development

from ROW management. It is not likely that the Beef Gap ROW exclusion area would impact

wind-energy development because required transmission lines would be likely to extend from

the area of wind-energy potential in the eastern part of the planning area south to the Gateway

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Renewable Energy February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1031

transmission line currently being analyzed in an EIS or north to Casper (a route that would

not go through Beef Gap).

4.6.2.3.2.4. Special Designations

Alternative A management to protect resource values in special designation areas would adversely

impact wind-energy development by managing certain ACECs as avoidance areas for major

ROWs, which would include wind-energy development and related transmission lines. There are

169,229 acres of special designations in Alterative A. All wind-energy proposals in ACECs or

other special designations are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, with mitigation measures applied

through activity-level planning; proposed wind-energy developments could be denied or required

to relocate. Because of the contrast of the very large turbines used by current wind-energy

technology, it is not likely that wind-energy projects would meet the VRM objectives for ACECs,

Congressionally Designated Trails, and WSRs. While any proposal would need to be analyzed

on a site-specific basis (Wind Energy EIS ROD does not specifically exclude wind-energy

development in ACECs), management of special designations would likely result in a major

and long-term adverse impact to wind-energy development in the planning area. Alternative A

protection of Congressionally Designated Trails would adversely impact the renewable energy

program by limiting or precluding development within 1⁄4 mile of trails and could limit the places

where ROWs may cross NHTs. This would be a long-term adverse impact.

4.6.2.3.3. Alternative B

4.6.2.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B opens a total of 41,372 acres for wind-energy development, while 2,328,951 acres

are exclusion areas and 23,887 acres are avoidance areas (Map 98).

4.6.2.3.3.2. Resources

Alternative B protections for soil and water resources would result in greater adverse impacts

to wind-energy development than Alternative A, because Alternative B protects substantially

more areas from surface disturbance. This management would require much more relocation of

wind-energy projects and would preclude more projects than Alternative A. Limitations to protect

lands with wilderness characteristics under this alternative would result in more adverse impacts

from wind-energy development than Alternative A, which does not specially manage these areas.

Riparian-wetland management under Alternative B would be likely to require relocations or make

some projects impossible that would be allowable under Alternative A.

Management protections for wildlife under Alternative B would result in substantially more

adverse impacts to wind-energy projects than under Alternative A, because Alternative B applies

more timing restrictions and buffers, and avoids or closes more areas to surface disturbance.

Some of these protections would not adversely impact ROWs, because the protections limit

only the time of construction and not the ROW authorization. However, ROW exclusion or

avoidance areas would result in more adverse impacts to wind-energy development unless, on a

case-by-case basis, it could be shown that there would be no adverse impacts to wildlife species.

Because there has been relatively little research to identify impacts to wildlife from industrial

wind-energy generation, the requirement to show that there would be no impacts to wildlife

could preclude most wind-energy development.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Renewable Energy
1032 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Adverse impacts to wind-energy development from the protection of special status plants under

Alternative B would be relatively minor, the same as under Alternative A. Adverse impacts from

management of special status wildlife, however, would be much greater under Alternative B,

because the alternative places substantially more limitations on ROWs and surface disturbance.

Particularly regarding protections for greater sage-grouse, Alternative B would open many fewer

areas to wind-energy development and place more restrictions on the allowable height of poles

or structures where adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse would result. This would restrict

or preclude many utility ROWs and turbines. Alternative B surface disturbance limitations

and closure of the greater sage-grouse Core Area would close 2,328,951 acres to wind-energy

development. In addition, nesting habitat outside the Core Area have limits on the number of

energy disturbances and the percent of surface disturbance from any source, including on private

and state owned lands, which would require a site-specific analysis to determine if disturbance

caps have been reached or would be reached by the wind-energy project. While adverse impacts

to wind-energy development cannot be quantified, these limits could preclude wind-energy

development outside the Core Area, making adverse impacts to wind-energy development under

Alternative B the greatest of any alternative.

Alternative B protection of special status species and other wildlife habitat in the Dubois area

not already included in an ACEC would result in many more adverse impacts to wind-energy

development than protections under Alternative A. Alternative A manages ACECs in the Dubois

area avoidance areas for wind-energy development; Alternative B manages the entire Dubois

area as an exclusion area for wind-energy development. This difference in impacts between

alternatives A and B could mean little considering other limitations in the area, such as wilderness

designations in the Shoshone National Forest.

Because Alternative B includes a much larger avoidance area around the setting of

sacred/spiritual/TCPs (where the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility) than Alternative A,

Alternative B would result in many more adverse impacts to wind-energy development than

Alternative A. Under Alternative B, there would be fewer ROWs and related projects completed

due to the increase in distance from the cultural property, but it is not likely that these avoidance

areas would preclude most developments. Management of paleontological resources under

Alternative B would result in more adverse impacts to ROWs than Alternative A by managing

non-ACEC NNLs as exclusion areas for wind-energy development. The demand for ROWs in

these areas could be limited, so the degree of adverse impacts to the renewable energy program

cannot be determined. However, in the Beaver Rim area, which has wind-energy potential, there

could be major adverse impacts to wind-energy development.

Alternative B VRM would result in substantially more adverse impacts to wind-energy

development and associated ROWs because many more areas are designated as VRM Classes I

and II under Alternative B than under Alternative A, and fewer are designated VRM Classes III

and IV. Alternative B acres of VRM Classes are as follows: Class I, 59,317 (2 percent); Class

II, 1,284,122 (54 percent); Class III, 292,890 (12 percent); and Class IV, 756,813 (32 percent).

While this management under Alternative B would not preclude wind-energy development and

ROWs, it would be unlikely that any projects using the high-profile technology currently in use

on an industrial scale would meet VRM Class I or II objectives and might not meet Class III

objectives, a substantial impact to wind-energy development.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Renewable Energy February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1033

4.6.2.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B sharply limits mineral development, which would result in a secondary indirect

impact to wind-energy development. Alternative B withdraws 1,609,491 more acres and closes

areas that are only avoided under Alternative A. It is not likely that areas closed to mineral

development to protect other resources would be made available for wind-energy development,

even if wind-energy development is not specifically excluded. Moreover, mineral programs

generally require ROWs, including ROWs for power transmission. Alternative B would result

in more beneficial impacts to wind-energy development than Alternative A to the extent that

Alternative B designates more ROW corridors, which would facilitate transmission lines.

However, these beneficial impacts would be outweighed by the adverse impacts from other

management under Alternative B, including limiting major ROWs to the designated corridors

(an adverse impact) and closing substantially more land to wind-energy development to protect

other resources.

Alternative B opens 867 acres with wind potential for industrial wind-energy development and

designates major ROW corridors; this would beneficially impact wind-energy projects situated to

use these areas and corridors.

Alternative B recreation and travel management would result in more adverse impacts to

wind-energy development than Alternative A, Alternative B closes 12 times more acres to

motorized vehicle travel than Alternative A; closures to motorized vehicle travel also create

exclusion areas for wind-energy development and transmission line ROWs. However, this

travel management would not be likely to result in measurable adverse impacts to wind-energy

development because, even without motorized vehicle closures, it is not likely that wind-energy

development would be authorized because of the values that drive the travel management closures

(the areas are ROW exclusionary areas).

4.6.2.3.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative B management to protect ACECs and other special designations would result in

substantially more adverse impacts to wind-energy development than Alternative A. Alternative

B manages many more areas as exclusion or avoidance areas for wind-energy development and

transmission line ROWs, particularly in association with NLCS units. Limitations on locations

for crossing Congressionally Designated Trails would be more adverse than Alternative A, which

would make north-south transmission lines very difficult. Limits on wind-energy development

and its related transmission lines in the buffers around the trails would be much more adverse

under Alternative B, although the alternative does allow projects not visible from the trails. With

current technology for turbines, it is not likely that wind-energy development would be allowed

within trail buffers, and perhaps beyond, depending on a visual contrast rating.

Alternative B extends NWSRS suitability management to more areas than Alternative A, which

would adversely impact wind energy, although it is not likely that these waterway segments would

have the wind potential suitable for wind-energy development.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Renewable Energy
1034 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.6.2.3.4. Alternative C

4.6.2.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C opens 2,284,235 acres for wind-energy development. A total of 94,157 acres

are exclusion areas for wind-energy development and 15,818 acres are avoidance areas for

wind-energy development (Map 99).

4.6.2.3.4.2. Resources

Alternative C would result in the fewest adverse impacts to wind-energy development because it

restricts surface disturbance less than any other alternative for the protection of soil, water, fish,

wildlife, and cultural resources, and substantially less than Alternative B. Alternative C is the

same as Alternative A in its lack of special management of lands with wilderness characteristics,

so there would be no adverse impacts to the ROW program, of which wind-energy development

is a part. This difference could impact wind-energy development if the demand for such

development increased in response to management of the Whiskey Mountain area, which has

wind-energy potential, under standard stipulations.

Alternative C includes many fewer protections for special status species and therefore would

result in many fewer adverse impacts to wind-energy development from this management than

any other alternative. However, the BLM must still manage to protect special status species

under Alternative C, so these adverse impacts may be only slightly fewer under this alternative.

Therefore, even without RMP prescriptions such as limitations on height of structures in the

greater sage-grouse Core Area, each project would be considered for adverse impacts in the Core

Area and the height of proposed structures would be analyzed. However, management under

Alternative C would be likely to accelerate the downward trend in greater sage-grouse populations

and would be the most likely alternative to lead to greater sage-grouse listing under the ESA.

Alternative C management for the protection of cultural and paleontological resources is the same

as Alternative A. Therefore, impacts to wind-energy development under Alternative C would be

the same as under Alternative A, but less than adverse impacts under Alternative B. Alternative C

manages fewer areas as VRM Classes I and II and more areas as VRM Classes III and IV than

Alternative A or B. Therefore, Alternative C includes many fewer limitations on the wind-energy

program, substantially so compared to Alternative B.

4.6.2.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C closes the fewest areas to mineral development, which would result in secondary

beneficial impacts to wind-energy development because there would be more locations for roads,

transmission lines, and pipelines. Alternative C designates the most ROW corridors and places

the fewest restrictions on ROW locations, including major ROWs, which would beneficially

impact wind-energy development. Therefore, Alternative C would result in the fewest adverse

impacts to the ROW program (and therefore wind-energy development) of all the alternatives,

and would result in substantially fewer adverse impacts than Alternative B. Alternative C would

result in the most beneficial impacts to wind-energy development, which can generally be

co-located with other resource uses.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Renewable Energy February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1035

Alternative C closes the fewest areas to motorized vehicle travel and has the fewest roads with

travel limited to designated roads and trails. Therefore, Alternative C would result in the fewest

adverse impacts to ROWs and the most beneficial impacts to wind-energy development by

opening the most areas to new ROWs.

Recreation management under Alternative C would not preclude wind-energy development in the

areas closed under Alternative B, but is evaluated on a case-by-case basis to evaluate impacts to

highly used recreation sites.

4.6.2.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C would result in substantially fewer adverse impacts to wind-energy development

in its management of Congressionally Designated Trails because wind-energy development is

allowed outside the 1⁄4-mile buffer around the trails. In addition, Alternative C has none of the

limitations on crossing the NHTs that are included under Alternative B and, to a lesser extent,

would improve the ability to install north-south transmission lines.

Alternative C does not manage any waterway segments as eligible and suitable for inclusion the

NWSRS, so there would be no adverse impacts to wind-energy development from these areas

management. However, as stated previously, these areas contain little potential for wind-energy

development.

The management of special designations under Alternative C would reduce adverse impacts to

the wind-energy program compared to the other alternatives. Areas managed as ACECs under

alternatives A and B are managed with standard stipulations under Alternative C. Consequently,

Alternative C management of areas designated under other alternatives would result in no adverse

impacts to wind-energy development. Alternative C allows wind-energy development in 100

percent more special designations than Alternative A and B as well.

4.6.2.3.5. Alternative D

4.6.2.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D opens 224,289 acres for wind-energy development; 954,322 acres are renewable

energy exclusion areas and 1,215,599 acres are avoidance areas (Map 100). Wind-energy

development would have Required Design Features identified to reduce the amount and location

of surface disturbance and for other benefits.

4.6.2.3.5.2. Resources

Alternative D would result in more adverse impacts to the renewable energy program than

Alternative A, and substantially more than Alternative C, because it includes more restrictions on

surface disturbance for the protection of soil, water, and other resources. Alternative D would

result in many fewer impacts than Alternative B, because B has more restrictions on surface

disturbance for the protection of soil, water and other resources.

The more acres managed for wilderness characteristics, the more adverse impacts to the

renewable energy program. Alternative D manages slightly fewer acres of lands with

wilderness characteristics as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics than Alternative

B. The management of these areas could result in substantial adverse impacts to wind-energy

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Renewable Energy
1036 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

development in the acquired land in the Little Red Creek Complex near Dubois, which has

high wind-energy potential.

Protections for wildlife, fish, and special status species under Alternative D would result in more

adverse impacts to wind-energy development than Alternative A, and substantially more than

Alternative C. Alternative D would result in fewer adverse impacts from wildlife protections than

Alternative B, and closes less area to surface disturbance in lands with wind-energy potential

than that alternative. This more restrictive management might mean little, because under any

alternative, the BLM is required to manage to protect special status species, including greater

sage-grouse and raptors and other birds protected by regulation and treaty. However, Alternative

D explicit avoidance and closure would result in much more adverse impact to wind-energy

development than managing on a case-by-case basis, as under Alternative C.

Alternative D greater sage-grouse management would be much less adverse to wind-energy

development than Alternative B, because Alternative D limits the protected area for greater

sage-grouse to Core Area while Alternative B applies them to all nesting habitat. Core Area is

managed as an avoidance area for wind energy in this alternative, but applications for wind-energy

development will be denied in greater sage-grouse avoidance zones until research on the impact

of wind energy on greater sage-grouse has been completed and mitigation identified. There are

57,669 more acres of land open with wind development potential in Alternative D compared to

Alternative B. In addition, the Alternative D surface disturbance cap for greater sage-grouse

Core Area protection is double that of Alternative B (as opposed to alternatives A and C, which

have no cap). Like Alternative B, Alternative D limits energy projects, including wind, to one

project per section (640 acres). Required Design Features for the benefit of wildlife protections

would have additional adverse impacts to the renewable energy program by restricting the size

and location of development.

General protections for wildlife and cultural resources and viewshed further restrict wind

development beyond limits that would be the result of greater sage-grouse protections by

themselves. Because of these overall limitations on development, Alternative D would result in

impacts more similar to Alternative B than either Alternative A or C.

Alternative D management of cultural and paleontological resources is similar to that of

Alternative A and would result in the same level of adverse impacts to wind-energy development.

While some projects might need to be relocated, cultural resource management would not

be likely to preclude a wind-energy project. Management of Warm Springs Canyon Flume

would theoretically result in fewer adverse impacts to ROWs than Alternative B. However, this

difference would not substantially change the impacts because all alternatives manage the area as

a ROW exclusion area, which includes wind-energy development, due to slope limitations and the

adjoining USFS wilderness areas.

VRM under Alternative D would result in substantial adverse impacts to wind-energy

development, even in VRM Class III areas, because of the linear nature of transmission lines

and the high profile and dispersed nature of wind-energy developments. This impact would

increase the likelihood that wind-energy projects would not meet VRM objectives. Alternative

D VRM would result in more adverse impacts to wind-energy development than Alternative A,

substantially more than Alternative C, but fewer than Alternative B. It is not possible to quantify

this difference because VRM is applied on a case-by-case basis and adverse impacts depend on

the degree of contrast. However, in general, the more acres managed as more restrictive VRM

Classes, the more adverse the impacts to wind-energy development. Alternative D includes less

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Renewable Energy February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1037

restrictive VRM management than Alternative B, and therefore would result in fewer adverse

impacts to wind-energy development than Alternative B. Conversely, Alternative D would result

in more adverse impacts to wind-energy development than Alternative A and substantially more

than Alternative C.

4.6.2.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D mineral management would result in substantially more adverse impacts to

wind-energy development than Alternative C, and somewhat more than Alternative A. Alternative

D closes more acres to mineral activity in areas with wind-energy potential, but substantially less

than Alternative B. Management of solid mineral leasing, mineral material disposals, and locatable

minerals could result in adverse impacts under Alternative D. Under Alternative D, wind-energy

development, like oil and gas development, is subject to a 5 percent surface disturbance cap for

greater sage-grouse Core Area protection regardless of cause of the disturbance. Disturbances

on private and state lands and disturbances on federal lands from phosphate or uranium mining

or non-energy ROWs count toward the disturbance caps, which could be a limiting factor for

wind-energy development (as is the case for oil and gas development). While it is not possible to

calculate the potential for this adverse impact to occur, it is a conflict in management between

the renewable energy program and other resource uses that is not present under Alternative

A or Alternative C.

Alternative D closes more areas to motorized vehicle travel and avoids more areas for new

roads than alternatives A and C, but fewer than Alternative B. However, the areas closed under

Alternative D do not have high wind-energy potential, so there would be limited adverse impacts

to the renewable energy program.

In addition to managing campgrounds as exclusion areas for wind-energy development and

transmission corridors, like Alternative B, Alternative D manages the Beaver Creek Ski Area,

the CDNST ERMA, Johnny Behind the Rocks, the Bus @ Baldwin Creek, and the Dubois

Mill-Site area as exclusion areas for wind-energy development. This would result in somewhat

more adverse impacts to wind-energy development than Alternative A and substantially more

than Alternative C. Seasonal restrictions for recreation and travel management are not considered

adverse impacts.

4.6.2.3.5.4. Special Designations

There are important differences in impacts to wind-energy development among the alternatives

based on their management of special designations. Alternative D considers wind-energy

development on a case-by-case basis, except in exclusion areas but as indicated above, there are

limits on development for the protection of greater sage-grouse and other values that would apply

this case-by-case management to very limited areas in the planning area.

Alternative D management of Congressionally Designated Trails in the NTMC would result in

adverse impacts to wind-energy development similar to the impacts from ACEC management

under Alternative B, except that no Plan of Operations would be required, which is not an impact

to the wind-energy program. Under Alternative D, limitations on large or out-of-scale projects,

as well as VRM would adversely impact wind-energy development in a manner very similar to

Alternative B. The limits on ROWs under Alternative D would also be a limiting factor for

wind-energy development because of the need to connect generated electricity with users.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Renewable Energy
1038 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative D management of NWSRS-eligible and recommended suitable waterways would

result in somewhat more adverse impacts to wind-energy development than Alternative A, but the

adverse impacts would be limited for the reasons stated under Alternative B.

The greater the extent to which an alternative manages areas as exclusion or avoidance areas

for wind-energy development in areas managed as ACECs, the greater the adverse impacts to

the renewable energy program. Alternative D ACEC designations contain 80,572 acres with

wind-energy potential in exclusion or avoidance areas for wind-energy development; this is

substantially fewer acres than Alternative B, but more acres than Alternative A.

4.6.3. Rights-of-Way and Corridors

In accordance with 43 CFR 2801.5(b), ROW means the public lands the BLM authorizes a holder

to use or occupy under a grant or authorization. Designated ROW corridor or communication site

means a parcel of land with specific boundaries identified as being a preferred location for existing

and future ROWs and facilities and for which approval for use will be granted if consistent

with corridor management and not in conflict with existing uses. The designated corridor may

be suitable to accommodate more than one type of ROW use or facility or one or more ROW

uses or facilities that are similar, identical, or compatible. The use of the word “corridor” in this

analysis means designated corridors. The alternatives vary in their designation of corridors and

the designation of ROW avoidance and exclusion areas.

4.6.3.1. Summary of Impacts

Adverse impacts to ROWs and designated corridors result from management actions for other

resources that limit, prohibit, or otherwise decrease the potential for ROWs. When there are

restrictions on ROWs, there is an adverse impact to the lands and realty program.

Beneficial impacts to ROWs and designated corridors result from management actions and

resource uses that increase the locations open to and with the potential for ROWs and corridors.

When there are fewer or no restrictions identified in this analysis, there is a beneficial impact to

the lands and realty program.

4.6.3.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● The BLM treats wind-energy projects (test sites and industrial wind-energy development) as

ROWs; impacts to wind-energy development are addressed in the Renewable Energy section.

● The demand for ROW increases in conjunction with expanded oil and gas, utility, and

communications development.

● Corridors and communications sites or ROW-use areas are designated as the preferred future

locations for ROWs.

● Temporary and permanent ROWs for smaller distribution facilities for minerals development

and transportation, power and telephone services, and access roads are expected to increase

depending on the degree of development. Each ROW grant will identify whether the

development will be temporary or permanent.

● The impacts of development and designation of transportation and utility ROWs would be

mitigated on a case-by-case basis. Generally, this would be accomplished by locating future

transportation and utility ROWs adjacent to existing facilities.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Rights-of-Way and Corridors February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1039

● Designated corridors are 1⁄2 mile wide, except as specifically identified under an alternative.

The corridors will be designated for aboveground and/or underground use.

● Specific proposals will require site-specific environmental analysis and compliance with

established permitting processes. Activities generally excluded from ROW corridors include

mineral materials disposals, range and wildlife habitat improvements involving surface

disturbance and facility construction, campgrounds and public recreation facilities, and other

facilities that would attract public use and new oil and gas facilities. ROW facilities will not

be placed adjacent to each other if resource conflicts or issues with safety or incompatibility

are identified.

● To meet demand for major utility lines, companies will focus on the maintenance and upgrade

of existing lines before undertaking new construction of major utility lines.

● New construction of major infrastructure (ROWs) and utility facilities will be based on

public need and demand.

● ROWs will be granted to qualified individual, business, or government entities in a manner

that protects natural resources associated with public lands and adjacent lands, whether

administered by the government or a private entity (43 CFR 2801).

● Existing ROWs and communications sites will be managed to protect valid existing rights.

● The more restrictive VRM, the more adverse the impacts to ROWs. VRM Class I and II

visual resources allow very limited to limited visual contrast with the existing landscape, and

Class III has some limits on contrast. Accordingly, the more acres managed with lower VRM

Classes, the more adverse impacts to ROWs. While VRM does not exclude or avoid areas for

ROWs, the lower the VRM Class, the more difficult the placement of a ROW. Adverse impacts

to the ROW program from VRM is more severe the larger or higher the proposed action

(30-foot wide roads result in less contrast than high-voltage electrical transmission lines).

● Limits on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources would have

adverse impacts on ROWs and would limit areas available for corridors. The greater the

restriction on surface disturbance, regardless of the resource being protected (soil, water,

wildlife, etc.), the greater the adverse impact to ROWs.

● Although not an environmental impact, ROW applicants would benefit from reduced proposal

processing time with the application of mitigation measures and BMPs and by co-locating

proposed projects in existing disturbance and in specified areas in the planning area. This is

considered a benefit to the lands and realty program.

4.6.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.6.3.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The ROD for Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land Management-Administered

Lands in the 11 Western States (DOE and BLM 2008), designated energy corridor 79-216 in

the planning area, a beneficial impact to the lands and realty program. All alternatives include

corridor 79-216, so it is not further addressed in this section.

Proposed ROWs will be evaluated for location on a case-by-case basis except where an alternative

excludes ROWs. Mitigation measures and BMPs will be applied to ensure ROWs are co-located

with existing ROWs in existing disturbance where possible. This would adversely impact the

ROW program, because it would restrict the location of ROWs in the planning area and could

require some proposed projects to be relocated.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Rights-of-Way and Corridors
1040 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Mitigation measures and BMPs are applied to proposed linear ROWs such as fiber-optic cables

and low-voltage powerlines to place them along currently established road systems (e.g.,

interstate or state highways and paved county roads). This would restrict the location of ROWs

in the planning area.

The section of the Sweetwater Rocks complex known as Beef Gap is a ROW exclusion area, even

if the ROWs would be co-located with existing ROWs.

Protection of grassland and shrubland resources under other programs such as ACECs would

result in indirect adverse impacts to the ROW program and corridor development by limiting

areas open to surface disturbance. See the Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities

section for ROW management in these areas.

WSAs are units of the NLCS and are managed under BLM Manual 6330, Management of

Wilderness Study Areas, which precludes ROWs and corridors within WSA boundaries.

4.6.3.3.2. Alternative A

4.6.3.3.2.1. Program Management

Under Alternative A, a total of 205,916 acres are ROW exclusion areas and 66,099 acres are

ROW avoidance areas.

4.6.3.3.2.2. Resources

Alternative A soil and water management that avoids disturbing soils with LRP, slopes,

riparian-wetland areas, or groundwater recharge areas restricts the location of or, in some cases,

precludes the development of ROWs. Even if these areas are available on a case-by-case basis, it

is likely that BMPs or relocation would be required. Protections for groundwater recharge areas

would limit the location or design of some projects, and in situations where these areas would

not be avoided, additional BMPs would be applied to prevent contamination to these areas. This

would adversely impact ROWs. However, these adverse impacts would not be likely to make

an ROW infeasible.

Alternative A mitigation measures (i.e., seasonal restrictions to protect wildlife resources and

critical habitat) would restrict the timing of surface-disturbing and other surface-disruptive

activities, but would not preclude construction at another time of the year. This wildlife

management would not adversely impact ROWs.

Alternative A management to protect special status plants by use of exclusionary areas for ROWs,

restricts the location and design of facilities and in some locations precludes placement of ROWs.

Mitigation measures (i.e., seasonal restrictions to protect wildlife resources and critical habitat)

would restrict the timing of surface-disturbing and other surface-disruptive activities, but this

would not adversely impact the location of facilities or the placement of ROWs.

Alternative A protection of cultural resources would adversely impact ROWs because mitigation

measures designed to reduce impacts to cultural resources could increase costs or require different

locations. The protection of the setting of sacred/spiritual/TCPs (where the setting contributes to

NRHP eligibility) would be achieved through avoidance within 1⁄4 mile of the cultural property. In

rare cases, ROWs and corridors would be precluded, especially those involving higher-profile

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Rights-of-Way and Corridors February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1041

structures. Paleontological resource management could restrict the location of ROWs and

corridors to avoid adverse impacts to paleontological values. The location of these resources

could limit the placement of facilities or require their relocation, but would rarely preclude the

action as a whole.

VRM Class I and II restrictions under Alternative A would adversely impact ROWs by limiting

the amount of permissible contrast. ROWs are typically linear and often tall, so limitations

on contrast would adversely impact ROW development. More contrast is allowed in Class III

and IV areas, and these areas are open for ROWs and corridors on a case-by-case basis. Under

Alternative A, 11 percent of the planning area is VRM Class I or II; 89 percent of the planning

area is VRM Class III or greater.

4.6.3.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A management for mineral resources is generally compatible with ROWs and could

result in beneficial impacts to ROWs to the extent that ROWs are developed in conjunction

with oil and gas or uranium development. Recreation management precludes or limits ROWs

in developed recreation sites, an adverse impact to the ROW program. See Chapter 2 for a list

of this management and associated acres. Travel management limitations that close areas to

motorized vehicle use adversely impact the ROW program. However, Alternative A closes

only 5,923 acres to motorized vehicle travel.

4.6.3.3.2.4. Special Designations

Alternative A management to protect resource values in special designation areas would adversely

impact the lands and realty program by avoiding certain ACECs for major ROWs unless no

other location is possible. All ROWs in ACECs or other special designations are reviewed on a

case-by-case basis, with mitigation measures applied through activity-level planning, and may be

denied or possibly relocated. This would result in a potential major long-term adverse impact to

the lands and realty program. Protections of Congressionally Designated Trails would adversely

impact the ROW program by limiting or precluding development within 1⁄4 mile of the trails and

could limit the places where ROWs could cross NHTs. This would be a long-term adverse impact.

Under Alternative A, communications facilities are authorized under site-specific leases on

a case-by-case basis. ROW avoidance areas are voided for any and all ROWs, including

communications sites. Communications sites are located in areas where completed

Communication Site Management Plans (Horse Heaven, Atlantic City/South Pass, Crooks

Mountain, and Cedar Rim) are located.

4.6.3.3.3. Alternative B

4.6.3.3.3.1. Program Management

Under Alternative B, a total of 1,919,029 acres are ROW exclusion areas and 315,219 acres are

ROW avoidance areas. Designated ROW corridors areas make up 15,364 acres, or less than 1

percent of the planning area.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Rights-of-Way and Corridors
1042 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.6.3.3.3.2. Resources

Alternative B protections for soil and water resources would adversely impact the ROW program

more than Alternative A, because Alternative B protects substantially more areas from surface

disturbance. This management would require more relocation of ROWs, would preclude

more ROWs, and could require more BMPs and mitigation than Alternative A. In particular,

riparian-wetland management under Alternative B would be likely to require the relocation of or

exclude some projects that would be available under Alternative A. Limitations to protect lands

with wilderness characteristics under Alternative B would have more adverse impacts on ROWs

than Alternative A, which does not specially manage these areas.

Management protections for wildlife under Alternative B would result in more adverse impacts to

ROWs than Alternative A, because Alternative B applies more timing restrictions and distances

and makes more areas ROW avoidance or exclusion areas. While some of these protections

would not adversely impact ROWs because they limit only the time of construction and not

the ROW authorization, the areas that are ROW avoidance or exclusion areas would adversely

impact the lands and realty program unless, on a case-by-case basis, it can be shown that there

would be no impacts to the species.

Adverse impacts to ROWs from protection of special status plants under Alternative B would be

the same as under Alternative A. Adverse impacts from management of special status wildlife

would be much greater under Alternative B than under Alternative A because Alternative B

places substantially more limitations on ROWs. Particularly regarding protections for greater

sage-grouse, Alternative B opens fewer areas to ROWs and places more restrictions on the

allowable height of poles or structures. This would restrict or preclude many utility ROWs.

Alternative B management to remove duplicative roads also would adversely impact ROWs.

Alternative B protection of special status species and other wildlife habitat in the Dubois area not

already included in an ACEC would be much more adverse to ROWs than Alternative A, because

only ACECs in this area are ROW avoidance areas while the entire Dubois area is an exclusion

area for major ROWs. The importance of this difference might mean little considering the low

demand for major ROWs and the fact that minor ROWs are still allowed although avoided.

Because Alternative B includes a substantially larger ROW avoidance area around the setting

of sacred/spiritual/TCPs (where the setting contributes to NRHP eligibility) than Alternative A,

adverse impacts to ROWs would be substantially greater. There would be fewer ROWs and

corridor projects completed due to the increase in distance from the cultural property, but it

would not be likely that such avoidance would preclude most developments. Management of

paleontological resources under Alternative B would result in more adverse impacts to ROWs

than Alternative A by excluding non-ACEC NNLs from ROWs. The demand for ROWs in

these areas might be limited, so the degree of adverse impacts to the lands and realty program

cannot be determined. However, in the Beaver Rim area, there could be substantial adverse

impacts to ROWs.

Alternative B VRM would result in substantially more adverse impacts to ROWs than Alternative

A, because Alternative B designates many more areas as VRM Classes I and II and designates

fewer areas as VRM Classes III and Class IV. Alternative B manages 56 percent of the planning

area as VRM Classes I or II and 44 percent as Classes III and IV.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Rights-of-Way and Corridors February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1043

4.6.3.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Mineral development is much more limited under Alternative B than Alternative A, which would

result in secondary adverse impacts to the ROW program because it limits the areas where ROWs

for oil and gas, uranium, and other development can occur. Primarily, these limits are to protect

the resources described above, such as greater sage-grouse or soils. Alternative B would result in

more beneficial impacts to the ROW program than Alternative A to the extent that Alternative

B designates more corridors. While these beneficial impacts could be outweighed by adverse

impacts from other management, including limiting major ROWs to the designated corridors (an

adverse impact), Alternative B would facilitate the approval of ROWs within designated corridors.

Alternative B recreation and travel management would result in more adverse impacts to ROWs

because the alternative includes more areas as ROW exclusion areas, including areas that are only

avoided under Alternative A, and closes more areas to motorized vehicle travel, which prohibits

ROWs in the areas. Alternative B closes 2.7 percent more of the planning area to motorized

vehicle travel than Alternative A.

4.6.3.3.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative B management to protect ACECs and special designations would result in many more

adverse impacts to ROWs than Alternative A. Alternative B manages substantially more areas as

ROW and wind-energy development avoidance and exclusion areas, particularly in association

with NLCS units, and would require project relocations in many areas. Alternative B opens only

867 acres with wind-energy potential to development. Alternative B closes the remaining areas of

high wind-energy potential due to special designations. Alternative B limitations on locations

for crossing Congressionally Designated Trails would result in more adverse impacts to ROWs

than Alternative A. Limits on ROWs in the buffers around trails would result in greater adverse

impacts to ROWs, although ROWs that cannot be seen from trails are allowed. Alternative B

trails management for highly visible projects, such as high-voltage transmission lines, would

result in major adverse impacts to ROWs. Alternative B management of NWSRS-eligible

waterways managed as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS makes more acres (9,919) exclusion

areas for wind-energy development and transmission lines.

Alternative B allows major ROWs in the following locations: Lost Creek Corridor, which runs

north-south from Wamsutter to Lysite (approximately 1⁄4 mile wide, except near NHTs, where it is

400 feet wide); approximately 10 miles of corridor connecting Lost Creek and the Casper Field

Office designated corridor; and corridor 79-216 with a 3,500-foot width. While ROWs in these

corridors would be processed faster, a benefit, no ROWs would be approved anywhere else in the

planning area, which would adversely impact the ROW program compared to Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, communications facilities will be co-located within the following existing

sites: Atlantic City, Black Rock, Cedar Rim, Crooks Mountain, Gun Barrel, Horse Heaven, and

Muskrat. This would restrict the location of communications sites in other areas, and adversely

impact the lands and realty program compared to Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Rights-of-Way and Corridors
1044 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.6.3.3.4. Alternative C

4.6.3.3.4.1. Program Management

Under Alternative C, a total of 147,053 acres are ROW and corridor-development exclusion areas,

11,714 acres are ROW and corridor-development avoidance areas, 660,908 acres are designated

as corridors, and the remainder of the planning area is open for ROW and corridor development.

Alternative C allows major utility ROWs in designated corridors and almost everywhere else

on a case-by-case basis. Designated corridors up to 3 miles wide are allowed in Alcova Boysen

Transmission Line, Beaver Creek CO2, Beaver Creek North to the Reservation, Bison Basin

Road, Colorado Interstate Gas near Muddy Gap, Frontier-Exxon-Anadarko, Highway 20/26,

KN East West Gas Pipeline, Lost Creek, PP&L powerline, Shoshoni-Badwater, Sinclair near

Pathfinder Reservoir, WAPA – Pacificorp Transmission, and West Wide.

Alternative C places the fewest restrictions on ROWs and would result in the fewest adverse

impacts to ROWs, including corridors, of all alternatives.

Alternative C allows communications facilities under site-specific leases on a case-by-case basis,

and does not require them to be co-located. This is the least restrictive of the alternatives, and

would result in the most beneficial impacts to ROWs.

The most important difference in impacts to the ROW program under Alternative C is in its

management of special designations. Areas managed as ACECs under alternatives A and B,

including ROW avoidance and exclusion areas are managed with standard stipulations under

Alternative C. Consequently, Alternative C ACEC management would not adversely impact

ROWs. This is unlike Alternative A, which would result in moderate adverse impacts, and

Alternative B, which would result in major adverse impacts. Although the actual effect of

these differences would depend on demand for ROWs in areas managed as ACECs under other

alternatives, in at least some areas (e.g., Beaver Rim and South Pass), the demand could be

high and the difference important.

4.6.3.3.4.2. Resources

Alternative C would result in the fewest adverse impacts to the ROW program because it restricts

surface disturbance less than any other alternative for the protection of soil, water, and other

resources, and substantially less than Alternative B. Alternative C is the same as Alternative A in

its lack of special management of lands with wilderness characteristics, so it would not adversely

impact the ROW program through that management. The absence of such management could

limit adverse impacts to the ROW program if demand for ROWs to access forest resources in the

acquired land in the Little Red Creek Complex near Dubois increases.

Protections for fish, wildlife, and special status species under Alternative C would result in fewer

adverse impacts to the ROW program than any other alternative. Therefore, those protections

would be less likely to result in a change in location or design of ROWs than Alternative B. The

difference in adverse impacts between alternatives A and C would likely mean little, because

under all alternatives the BLM must specially manage to protect special status species. Therefore,

even without RMP prescriptions such as limitations on the height of structures in greater

sage-grouse Core Area, the BLM would consider each site-specific project for adverse impacts in

the Core Area and would analyze the height of proposed structures. Across the planning area,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Rights-of-Way and Corridors February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1045

Alternative C would result in the fewest restrictions for the benefit of resources and therefore

would result in the fewest adverse impacts to the ROW program. However, management under

Alternative C would be likely to accelerate the downward trend in greater sage-grouse populations

and would be the alternative most likely to lead to greater sage-grouse listing under the ESA.

Alternative C management for the protection of cultural and paleontological resources is the same

as Alternative A, so adverse impacts to ROWs would be the same as under Alternative A and

less than under Alternative B. Alternative C manages fewer areas as VRM Classes I and II and

more areas as VRM Classes III and IV than alternatives A and B. Therefore, Alternative C places

many fewer limitations on the ROW program. See the Visual Resources section for acres of

VRM Classes under Alternative C.

4.6.3.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C designates the most corridors and places the fewest restrictions on ROW locations,

including major ROWs. Therefore, Alternative C would result in the fewest adverse impacts

to the ROW program of all of the alternatives, and substantially fewer adverse impacts than

Alternative B.

Under Alternative C, no ROWs or corridors will be considered in the following developed

recreation sites: Atlantic City Campground, 181 acres; Big Atlantic Gulch, 181 acres;

Cottonwood Campground, 80 acres; lands adjacent to the Fremont County Campground, 20

acres; Miners Delight, 239 acres; and Wildhorse Point, 20 acres.

Under Alternative C, limitations for ROWs will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in the

following areas: the Beaver Creek Ski Area, the CDNST ERMA, Johnny Behind the Rocks,

the Bus @ Baldwin Creek, the Dubois Mill-Site area, including the Muskrat Basin ERMA of

Mule Deer hunt area 90 and Antelope hunt area 67 and the Agate Flats ERMA of Antelope

hunt areas 68, 69, and 106.

Alternative C closes the fewest areas to motorized vehicle travel and includes the fewest roads

with travel limited to designated roads and trails. Therefore, Alternative C would result in the

fewest adverse impacts to ROWs.

4.6.3.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C would result in fewer adverse impacts to the ROW program in its management of

the Congressionally Designated Trails because only the 1⁄4-mile buffer on each side of trails is

excluded to ROWs. In the case of NHT management, this difference would be substantial due to

the very large area closed to trails crossings and the broad buffer around trails under Alternative

B. In addition, management of the CDNST requires moving the trail if there is a conflict with

another use and safety issues are involved. This management would be beneficial to the ROW

program, and substantially beneficial compared to Alternative B.

4.6.3.3.5. Alternative D

4.6.3.3.5.1. Program Management

Under Alternative D, a total of 417,426 acres are ROW and corridor-development exclusion

areas, 1,369,300 acres are ROW and corridor-development avoidance areas, 103,646 acres are

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Rights-of-Way and Corridors
1046 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

designated as corridors, and the remainder of the planning areas is open for corridors on a

case-by-case basis, but the burden is on the proponent to establish that the use of a designated

corridor is not possible.

4.6.3.3.5.2. Resources

Alternative D would result in more adverse impacts to the ROW program than Alternative A, and

substantially more than Alternative C, because Alternative D places more restrictions on surface

disturbance for the protection of soil, water, and other resources than alternatives A and C, but

substantially fewer than Alternative B. Alternative D manages slightly fewer acres of lands with

wilderness characteristics as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics than Alternative B.

Alternative D protections for fish, wildlife and special status species would result in more adverse

impacts to the ROW program than Alternative A, and substantially more than Alternative C,

which is likely to result in a need to change the location or design of ROWs than alternatives

A and C. Alternative D would result in fewer adverse impacts than Alternative B from wildlife

protections. However, in effect, this more restrictive management might mean little because under

all alternatives the BLM must specially manage to protect special status species. Therefore, even

without RMP prescriptions such as limitations on the heights of structures in the Core Area, the

BLM would consider each site-specific project for adverse impacts in the Core Area and analyze

the height of proposed structures. Avoiding ROWs in Core Area would result in far fewer adverse

impacts than Alternative B. The one area in which Alternative D management of special status

species could result in substantially less adverse impact to the ROW program than Alternative B

is that greater sage-grouse Core Area surface disturbance calculations are applied only to energy

ROWs and transmission lines and not to other ROWs. However, the disturbance associated with

all ROWs could limit mineral development which in turn would adversely impact the demand for

ROWs. This is analyzed in detail in the Renewable Energy section.

The Required Design Features to limit adverse impacts associated with surface disturbance as

well as those that require aggressive reclamation would adversely impact the ROW program.

However, measures to minimize disturbance footprints would reduce the cost of reclamation.

These limits, coupled with strict avoidance criteria would make the adverse impacts more similar

to Alternative B than to Alternative A.

Alternative D management of cultural and paleontological resources is similar to Alternative A

and would result in the same adverse impacts. ROWs could need to be relocated, but cultural

resource management would not be likely to preclude ROWs. Management of Warm Springs

Canyon Flume could result in fewer adverse impacts to ROWs under Alternative D than under

Alternative B, but the difference would mean little because the area is a ROW avoidance

area under all alternatives due to slope limitations and adjoining USFS wilderness areas. The

management of the Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area would result in adverse impacts that

are similar to but slightly less than the impacts that would result under Alternative B.

Alternative D would result in more adverse impacts to ROWs from VRM than Alternative A,

substantially more than Alternative C, and fewer than Alternative B. It is not possible to quantify

this difference because VRM is applied on a case-by-case basis and adverse impacts would

depend on the degree of contrast. However, the more acres managed for more restrictive VRM

objectives, the more adverse the impacts to ROWs. See the Visual Resources section for a

comparison of the numbers of acres in each VRM Class. VRM can often result in substantial

adverse impacts to the ROW program, even in Class III areas, because of the linear nature of

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Rights-of-Way and Corridors February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1047

ROWs and, in the case of powerlines, their high profile, which increases the likelihood that

the ROW would not meet VRM objectives.

4.6.3.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Minerals management under Alternative D would result in adverse impacts to ROWs similar to

but less intense than the impacts under Alternative B. The demand for ROWs is, in substantial

part, directly related to development of minerals. As development is reduced the demand for

ROWs is also reduced.

Alternative D designates more corridors and places fewer restrictions on ROW locations,

including major ROWs, than Alternative B, and therefore would result in fewer adverse impacts

than Alternative B. Although Alternative D designates more corridors than Alternative A and

in that regard would result in more beneficial impacts to the ROW program than Alternative A,

Alternative D manages more areas as ROW exclusion areas than Alternative A, which would

offset this beneficial impact. Alternative D allows major utility ROWs in designated corridors

and in other places under some limited circumstances. Designated corridors up to 1⁄2 mile wide

are allowed except where the corridor crosses an NHT, where it could be only 1⁄4 mile wide or

less. With the exception of Alternative B, these substantial restrictions would result in the greatest

adverse impacts to ROWs.

Recreation management in Alternative D, in addition to the closure of campgrounds to ROWs

and corridors common to all alternatives, excludes the Beaver Creek Ski Area, the CDNST

ERMA, Johnny Behind the Rocks, the Bus @ Baldwin Creek, and the Dubois Mill-Site area to

ROWs, which would result in more adverse impacts to the ROW program than Alternative A, and

substantially more than Alternative C. Seasonal restrictions for recreation and travel management

are not adverse environmental impacts.

Alternative D closes more areas to motorized vehicle travel and avoids more areas for new roads

than alternatives A and C, but fewer than Alternative B. The more ROW avoidance and exclusion

areas, the greater the adverse impacts to the ROW program.

Alternative D identifies more sites for co-location of communications facilities, and therefore

would result in more beneficial impacts to the ROW program than alternatives A, B, and C,

even though Alternative D closes two sites included under Alternative B when the existing

leases expire. Alternative D also would result in more beneficial impacts than Alternative B

because other locations would be considered for communications sites if the designated sites

are unsuitable, whereas no additional sites will be allowed under Alternative B. Alternative D

would result in more adverse impacts than Alternative A or Alternative C, which consider new

communications site locations. Alternative D consolidates communication sites, thus fewer new

sites are authorized.

4.6.3.3.5.4. Special Designations

Special designations would result in adverse impacts to ROWs that are similar to those under

Alternative B, but more limited in degree.

Alternative D management of Congressionally Designated Trails as the NTMC would result in

similar adverse impacts to ROWs as Alternative B, although less severe because an additional

designated corridor in the Bison Basin Road area allows the Congressionally Designated Trails to

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Rights-of-Way and Corridors
1048 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

be crossed. Alternative D would result in impacts more severe than Alternative A. Alternative D

would result in substantially more adverse impacts both in where trails may be crossed and the

buffer in which ROWs are excluded. Alternative D also includes special management for major

ROWs in the viewshed of trails, which would adversely impact ROWs much more than under

Alternative A. However, Alternative D would result in fewer adverse impacts than Alternative

B, potentially substantially fewer.

The more an alternative manages ACECs as ROW avoidance or exclusion areas, the greater the

adverse impacts to the ROW program. Alternative D designates more areas as ACECs than

Alternative A and would therefore result in more adverse impacts. Moreover, Alternative D

manages some ACECs (the Dubois ACECs, the South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC, Red

Canyon, and the Lander Slope ACECs) as ROW exclusion areas, which would result in greater

adverse impacts. This management is similar to the ROW management in Alternative B; as noted

above, the adverse impact to the ROW program depends upon the demand for ROWs which has

historically been relatively low. Alternative D would result in far more adverse impacts than

would result from ROW management under Alternative C. Alternative D management of ACECs

includes 21 percent more avoidance areas than Alternative A and 1 percent fewer than Alternative

B. Alternative D includes .011 percent fewer acres of ROW exclusion areas, than Alternative B.

The actual impact would, again, depend on the degree to which there is demand for ROWs; if

there is no demand there would be no adverse impact from ROW avoidance or exclusion areas.

4.6.4. Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

The travel system is managed to achieve the goals and objectives of each alternative and to

provide for appropriate public access. This program is considered a support function for all

BLM programs. Therefore, the goals of the trails and travel management program (as discussed

in Executive Order 11644 and 43 CFR 8340) are as follows:

● Provide and improve sustainable access for public needs and experiences.

● Protect natural resources and settings.

● Minimize conflicts among the various users of BLM-administered lands.

As a result of the (sometimes divergent) program goals discussed above, impacts to travel

management cannot be completely labeled as adverse or beneficial; instead impacts to travel

management represent a given areas travel management focus or priority. To facilitate impact

analysis of the various alternatives, the following impact parameters would be the focus of this

analysis:

● The minimum standard for protecting natural resources is planning for route densities

and locations that meet or exceed Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Travel

management to protect resources beyond the minimum is considered an increased resource

protection focus. Areas with an increased protection focus will be managed to meet minimum

standards for providing sustainable access for public needs and experiences. When conflicts

between travel and resources exist within this area, travel would be constrained by the needs

of the resource(s). Such a decision would result in a beneficial impact to the comprehensive

trail and travel management goal of protecting natural resources, but would result in an

adverse impact to visitor access.

● The minimum standard for providing sustainable access for public needs and experiences

is planning for route densities and locations in consideration of primary travelers. Travel

management to enhance access beyond the minimum objective is considered an increased

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1049

access focus. Areas with an increased access focus will be managed to meet minimum

standards for protecting resources. When conflicts between travel and resources exist

within this area, impacts to resources may occur (within the limitations of existing laws and

policies) to accommodate access. Such a decision would result in a beneficial impact to the

comprehensive trail and travel management goal of providing access, but would result in an

adverse impact to the protection of resources.

4.6.4.1. Summary of Impacts

Table 4.24, “Travel Designations by Alternative” (p. 1049), Table 4.25, “Areas Closed

to Motorized Vehicles by Alternative” (p. 1050), Table 4.26, “Acres Designated for

Over-Snow Travel” (p. 1050) and Table 4.27, “Acres Designated for Mechanized (Bicycle)

Travel” (p. 1050) list travel designations by alternative. In addition to the impacts discussed in the

introduction section of this section; areas closed or limited to a specific type of travel represent

an adverse impact to that mode of travel. The overall impact to travel management from such

decisions may be offset due to the fact that a closure may benefit another form of travel, such as

a closure to motorized travel which would beneficially impact nonmotorized travel. The tables

below summarize the travel designations by alternative for all forms of travel.

Table 4.24. Travel Designations by Alternative

Trails and Travel

Management

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres open to

cross-country travel

0 0 0 0

Acres limited to

existing routes1 2,226,504 2,128,741 2,337,958 2,213,081

Acres limited to

designated routes

163,075 193,704 50,776 154,772

Acres limited

seasonally

111,002 116,805 0 110,530

Acres closed to

motorized vehicle

use

5,923 71,761 5,472 26,357

Total Planning Area

Acres

2,394,210 2,394,210 2,394,210 2,394,210

Source: BLM 2012a

1This designation is an interim designation until route-specific planning can occur, at which time motorized travel in

the area will be limited to designated roads and trails.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management
1050 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 4.25. Areas Closed to Motorized Vehicles by Alternative

Location

Alternative A

Acres Closed

Alternative B

Acres Closed

Alternative C

Acres Closed

Alternative D

Acres Closed

Castle Gardens 78 8,469 0 Same as Alternative C

Copper Mountain

Wilderness Study

Area

0 6,936 0 Same as Alternative B

Dubois Badlands 4,561 4,561 0 Same as Alternative B

Lankin Dome 0 6,347 0 Same as Alternative A

Miller Spring 0 6,697 0 Same as Alternative A

Savage Peak 0 7,178 0 Same as Alternative A

Split Rock 0 13,964 0 Same as Alternative A

Sweetwater Canyon 0 9,135 0 Same as Alternative A

Whiskey Mountain 0 519 0 Same as Alternative B

Bus @ Baldwin

Creek

0 1,159 0 Same as Alternative B

Dubois Mill Site 0 608 0 Same as Alternative B

Johnny Behind The

Rocks (Cedar Rim)

0 5,594 0 Same as Alternative B

Sinks Canyon

Climbing

0 139 0 Same as Alternative B

Little Red Creek

Complex

0 5,490 0 4,954

Baldwin Creek

Canyon

0 2,349 Same as Alternative B

Total (Percent of

Planning Area)

0.2 3 0 1

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 4.26. Acres Designated for Over-Snow Travel

Designation Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Closed 14,729 181,173 0 70,425

Limited 0 0 0 0

Open 2,379,481 2,213,037 2,394,210 2,323,785

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 4.27. Acres Designated for Mechanized (Bicycle) Travel

Designation Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Closed 0 63,379 0 7,660

Limited 0 201,064 0 166,789

Open 2,394,210 2,129,767 2,394,210 2,219,622

Source: BLM 2012a

4.6.4.2. Methods and Assumptions

This section analyzes potential impacts to public access and travel from management actions and

allowable uses under the various programs. Travel designations support resource management

programs and are designed to help achieve other program objectives. The land use emphasis for

each area guides travel designations. Therefore, proposed travel designations will adhere to the

management prescriptions under each alternative, while also aligning with the theme of each

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1051

alternative. Impacts to other resources and resource uses from trails and travel management are

addressed in resource-specific sections of this chapter.

As explained in Chapter 2, this RMP classifies all BLM-administered lands as open, limited,

or closed to motorized travel activities. For areas classified as limited, the RMP designates:

the modes of travel (e.g., foot, horseback, mechanized, and motorized); limitations on time

or season of use; limitations to certain types of vehicles (i.e., OHVs, motorcycles, all-terrain

vehicles; mechanized defined as mountain bikes only); limitations to licensed or permitted

vehicles or users; limitations to BLM administrative use only; or other types of limitations. The

following discussion of impacts on trails and travel management focuses on management actions

and allowable uses that restrict or facilitate travel opportunities. Management actions for the

following programs would have the potential to impact travel opportunities: lands with wilderness

characteristics, fish and wildlife, VRM, cultural resources, recreation, and special designations.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● All types and modes of travel, designations, and limitations associated with public access are

analyzed.

● The proposed travel designations would not affect ROW holders, permitted uses, county or

state roads, or other valid existing rights. Travel closures/limitations apply only to public

access.

● The demand to increase travel routes on BLM-administered lands will continue to increase

throughout the planning period, especially near communities.

● The incidence of resource damage and conflicts among mechanized, motorized, and

nonmotorized activities would increase with increasing use of BLM-administered lands.

● A travel management plan is not intended to provide evidence bearing on or addressing

the validity of any Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 assertions. R.S. 2477 rights are adjudicated

through a separate judicial and administrative process entirely independent of the BLM

planning process. Consequently, travel management planning will not consider R.S. 2477

assertions or evidence. Travel management planning will be founded on independently

determined purpose and need that is based on resource uses and associated access to public

lands and waters. At such time as a decision is made on R.S. 2477 assertions, the BLM will

adjust its travel routes accordingly.

● Impacts to travel management occur from both limitations (e.g., wildlife stipulations, special

designations, and cultural resources) and permitted uses (e.g., oil and gas development,

livestock grazing, and mining).

● Due to substantial increases in use and the development of new vehicle technologies,

designation of large areas as open to cross-country travel is no longer a viable management

strategy. There is no motorized/mechanized cross-country travel in areas designated as

limited or closed (excluding game-retrieval carts). Exceptions for motorized cross-country

travel can be included in the terms and conditions of a lease or permit or by separate written

authorization.

● In areas with limited-travel designations, motorized/mechanized travel is allowed up to 300

feet from designated motorized/mechanized routes for direct, not cross-country, access to

dispersed campsites, provided no resource damage occurs, no new routes are created, and

such access is not otherwise prohibited by the BLM Field Manager.

● Foot and horse (equestrian) access will not be restricted by travel designations that limit or

prohibit motorized/mechanized travel, and foot and horse access will be allowed on all routes

open to motorized and mechanized uses, unless otherwise specified.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management
1052 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Administrative use authorizations are granted on a case-by-case basis, with approval from the

BLM Authorized Officer.

● New routes, reroutes, or closures to the travel network in the limited areas will be changed

through activity-level planning with site-specific NEPA analyses.

4.6.4.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.6.4.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Program management actions identified as common to all alternatives would impact trails and

travel management. Small closure areas (such as Rocky Ridge), limiting the distance allowed for

big game carcass retrieval, and not allowing motorized travel on groomed nonmotorized winter

trails would enhance the protection of resources, enhance visitor safety, enhance nonmotorized

recreation, and minimize motorized vehicle conflicts with nonmotorized users. These actions

also would result in reduced motorized access in small areas and on random occasions where

topography is conducive (such as flat terrain and unsaturated soils) to carcass retrieval with

a motorized vehicle.

In addition, several actions common to all alternatives provide for flexibility in the travel

management program. These actions will allow the program to be responsive to public needs and

emerging issues in the planning area.

All travel management areas in the planning area will provide route densities, locations, and/or

visitor information to promote the safety of public land users and minimize resource use/user

conflicts. This would allow the travel program to minimize conflicts among the various users of

BLM-administered lands and promote the safety of public land users. These objectives could

result in some instances where access is limited; however, this will occur through project planning

and access impacts would be mitigated wherever possible.

Under all alternatives, impacts to travel would be minor and short-term along unpaved

travel routes (i.e., improved roads, single-track routes, mechanized trails) that require

road-surfacing-related dust abatement measures. Travelers encountering these measures in

process could experience some travel delays or rerouting around the affected road sections during

dust abatement and maintenance projects.

Across all alternatives at the implementation level, new route construction and existing route

maintenance will be limited by design features to reduce the impacts of surface-disturbing

activities on resources, resulting in some restrictions to transportation planning and access.

Prohibition of surface-disturbing activities and NSO, CSU, and TLS stipulations would limit

the ability of the travel program to develop a travel system that meets resource protection and

resource use needs. These stipulations would narrow the options and flexibility in the travel

program. In addition, TLS stipulations would restrict maintenance operations to periods when

activities would be less effective due to dryer temperatures and dry soils. It is assumed that

travel management decisions will reflect and benefit resource values in most areas. Therefore

it is assumed that exceptions will be granted to allow for a travel system that meets planning

objectives. Despite exceptions for travel management actions to protect resources, it is assumed

that allowable use stipulations would limit travel planning options and flexibility to address user

conflicts and/or enhance recreation opportunities. This limitation on options and flexibility will

occur and correspond with areas where there are moderate and major constraints for oil and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1053

gas development, in addition to areas closed to oil and gas development (with the exception of

SRMAs managed for enhanced recreation opportunities).

Limitations on motorized vehicle use and closures would reduce motorized access to the areas

where these decisions are applied to protect resources or enhance nonmotorized recreation

experiences. Reductions in motorized access also would result in reduced access and opportunities

for handicapped or physically challenged individuals. This would especially affect individuals

who depend on motorized vehicles for participation in activities. These adverse impacts would be

offset somewhat by the recreation management action that would allow individuals possessing a

valid WGFD disabled hunter permit or disabled hunter companion permit to use cross-country

motorized travel (in all areas except those closed to motorized travel) to retrieve big game

carcasses. In addition, management decisions exempt from travel management restrictions

(outside closed areas) scooters or wheelchairs used by holders of valid permits.

4.6.4.3.2. Alternative A

4.6.4.3.2.1. Program Management

Based on travel management objectives for specific areas, Alternative A would result in travel

management systems that provide an increased resource protection focus over 185,253 acres,

or approximately 8 percent of the planning area (Table 4.28, “Travel Management Focus under

Alternative A” (p. 1053)). In contrast, management objectives for the remainder of the planning

area would result in travel management systems that provide increased access focus on 2,208,957

acres, or 92 percent of the planning area. The assignments of these objectives is based primarily

on program needs to protect resources or enhance resource uses. In addition, the assignment of

acres for increased resource protection focus recognizes intensive commitments of financial and

operational resources for implementation. It is feasible that as implementation was finalized on

the 185,253 acres, additional acres within the 2,208,957 acres would move toward an increased

resource protection focus.

Table 4.28. Travel Management Focus under Alternative A

Alternative A Travel Management Area Focus Acres

Increased Access Focus and Minimum Standard for

Resource Protection

2,208,957

Increased Resource Protection Focus and Minimum

Standard for Access

185,253

Source: BLM 2012a

In areas not identified as closed or limited to designated roads and trails, this alternative allows for

cross-country motorized travel to perform necessary tasks. This would compromise enforcement

of travel decisions, placing on the BLM the burden to prove that travel management violations

are not occurring to facilitate a necessary task. In addition, this allowance was developed during

a period when motorized vehicle use typically involved trucks. Today motorized vehicle use

involves a multitude of different vehicles, resulting in variable impacts to resources. Finally,

this allowance prevents the BLM from knowing where and when the use occurs, resulting in a

situation in which resource impacts are not monitored or ever fully quantified or understood. For

these reasons, Alternative A travel management would not meet the travel management goals of

enhancing sustainable access or protecting resources.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management
1054 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative A program management closes the Red Canyon area to over-snow travel, including

motorized (year-round) and nonmotorized (seasonal). This results in enhanced resource protection

but reduced access. In contrast, this alternative opens the rest of the planning area to motorized

over-snow travel. Open designations would result in increased access but minimal resource

protection. In addition, Alternative A does not restrict over-snow travel to a specific snow depth,

which would result in increased access but would not protect resources.

Alternative A does not restrict or limit nonmotorized and mechanized travel.

4.6.4.3.2.2. Resources

As a result of resource-oriented management actions under Alternative A, a total of 70 percent

of the planning area has restrictions that would limit flexibility and options in the travel

management program. Primarily, these restrictions would limit BLM ability to create new roads,

maintain/enhance existing roads, or implement other travel management mitigation measures.

It is assumed that conflicts among resources and travel planning would be limited to solutions

and mitigation options that would result in priority being given to resource protection. These

restrictions would limit travel planning options and new road development, but would not change

the amounts and types of access currently available in the planning area.

Specific wildlife management actions identified to protect resources from motorized vehicle travel

include closing/reclaiming unnecessary roads to reduce road density and habitat fragmentation,

and avoiding authorizing road development in big game crucial winter range and parturition areas.

These management actions would result in travel systems that provide increased protections for

these resources. The level access would be reduced as a result of these management actions is not

quantifiable and access reductions would occur randomly across the planning area.

Alternative A manages 10.9 percent of the planning area as VRM Classes I and II. Impacts from

this management would be similar to those described above because these VRM designations

would not change the amounts and types of access currently available. VRM Classes I and II

designations would limit travel planning options and new road development.

Alternative A does not include specific travel management designations (such as limited to

designated) to support resource management. Instead such designations primarily correspond

with management actions associated with ACECs and WSAs. Impacts from special designations

to trails and travel management are discussed below.

4.6.4.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Resource uses are accommodated through leases, permits, or other management actions. In

conducting activities associated with such authorizations, permit holders or lessees typically

are authorized through the permit, lease, or ROW to perform activities outside existing travel

management decisions and/or construct new roads to facilitate activities. Sometimes newly

constructed ROWs are not available for general public access, but on most occasions in the

planning area they are open to the public through the life of the project. Limitations on these

activities come from stipulations on surface-disturbing activities, not the travel management

designations. Therefore, resource uses in open (with standard stipulations) areas would be the

most likely to adversely impact travel management. Alternative A opens 30 percent of the

planning area to resource uses under standard stipulations.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1055

The efficiency of travel planning and management in these areas would be limited, because

more ROWs and authorizations for motorized vehicle use outside the travel designations would

compromise enforcement capabilities and render travel planning ineffective due to a constant

increase in new motorized routes. These actions would enhance access, but would not allow travel

planning in these areas to provide enhanced resource protection.

SRMAs are areas where recreation opportunities and outcomes are sustained through several

management decisions, including travel management. Therefore, management in SRMAs would

have the potential to affect travel management and access in these areas. Alternative A includes

three SRMAs, but no travel management decisions associated with these areas, therefore no

impact to access would result from these allocations.

4.6.4.3.2.4. Special Designations

Alternative A designates nine ACECs, and includes travel management decisions for five of these

ACECs to support management of the relevant and important values in these areas. These areas

total 107,495 acres where travel planning would be focused on enhanced resource protection

and minimum standards for access.

This alternative specifically restricts over-snow travel in the Red Canyon ACEC, but allows

cross-country over-snow travel in the rest of the planning area. This would result in decreased

resource protections and enhanced motorized vehicle access during periods when these areas

would be accessible via over-snow travel.

Alternative A manages motorized travel in all WSAs (except Dubois Badlands, which is closed)

to the minimum travel management decision allowed in WSAs. The management action to allow

motorized and mechanized travel only on designated roads and trails that were identified during

the inventory phase of the wilderness review would result in 55,338 acres managed for enhanced

resource protection and minimum standards for access.

4.6.4.3.3. Alternative B

4.6.4.3.3.1. Program Management

Travel management objectives for specific areas under Alternative B would result in travel

management systems that provide an increased resource protection focus over 276,338 acres,

or approximately 12 percent of the planning area (Table 4.29, “Travel Management Focus

under Alternative B” (p. 1056)). In contrast, objectives for the remainder of the planning area

would result in travel management systems that provide increased access on 2,117,822 acres, or

88 percent of the planning area. This alternative allocates more acres to resource protection

through travel management planning than Alternative A, and therefore would result in fewer

acres allocated to an increased access focus. These objectives are based primarily on program

needs to protect resources or enhance resource uses. In addition, the assignment of acres

for an increased resource protection focus recognizes intensive commitments of financial and

operational resources for implementation. It is feasible that as implementation was finalized

on the 276,338 acres, additional acres would move to enhanced resource protection standards.

This would occur more under Alternative B than Alternative A because Alternative B identifies

more areas for protective management than Alternative A. Several of these areas were left in

the increased access assignment because implementation of route designation process was

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management
1056 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

either viewed as too demanding on limited resources, limited feasibility due to terrain, or lower

in priority then other areas.

Table 4.29. Travel Management Focus under Alternative B

Alternative B Travel Management Area Focus Acres

Increased Access Focus and Minimum Standard for

Resource Protection

2,117,822

Increased Resource Protection Focus and Minimum

Standard for Access

276,338

Source: BLM 2012a

In areas not identified as closed or limited to designated roads and trails, Alternative B provides

for the standard travel management exceptions as granted by existing law and policy. This would

allow for better enforcement of travel decisions than Alternative A. Finally, Alternative B

only allows permitted cross-country travel. Requiring a permit for cross-country travel would

ensure the BLM knows where and when the use occurs, which allows resource impacts to be

monitored and quantified. For these reasons, compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would

improve progress toward reaching travel management goals of enhancing sustainable access or

protecting resources.

Alternative B manages over-snow vehicles the same as other motorized wheeled vehicles, and

requires users of these vehicles to abide by all (seasonal and year-round) closures, stay on

existing roads on 2,117,822 acres, and travel only on designated roads on 10 acres. Compared

to Alternative A, Alternative B increases the level of travel management, which would result in

enhanced resource protections but reduce access. This alternative manages motorized over-snow

travel the same as motorized wheeled vehicles; therefore, the rest of the planning area would be

closed to motorized over-snow travel. This designation would increase resource protections and

decrease access compared to Alternative A.

Nonmotorized and mechanized travel is somewhat restricted or limited under Alternative B. A

total of 63,379 acres are closed to mechanized travel to protect resources.

4.6.4.3.3.2. Resources

As a result of resource oriented management actions, Alternative B imposes restrictions on more

acres than Alternative A that would limit flexibility and options in the travel management program.

Primarily, these restrictions would limit BLM ability to create new roads, maintain/enhance

existing roads, or implement other travel management mitigation measures. It is assumed that

in these areas, conflicts among resources and travel planning would be limited to solutions

and mitigation options that would result in priority being given to resource protection. These

restrictions would limit travel planning options and new road development, but would not change

the amounts and types of access currently available in the planning area.

Alternative B manages 56 percent of the planning area as VRM Classes I and II. Impacts from

this management would be similar to those discussed above because these VRM designations

would change the amounts and types of access currently available in the planning area. The VRM

Class I and II designations would limit travel planning options and new road development.

Specific wildlife management actions identified to protect resources from motorized vehicle

travel include closing and reclaiming unnecessary roads to reduce road density and habitat

fragmentation, and avoiding authorizing road development in big game crucial winter range and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1057

parturition areas. These management actions would result in travel systems that provide increased

protections for these resources. The level of access restrictions that would result from these

management activities is not quantifiable and access reductions would occur randomly across the

planning area.

Alternative B closes 5,490 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics to motorized

vehicles in the Little Red Creek Complex to protect wilderness characteristics. Alternative A

does not specially manage lands with wilderness characteristics. Therefore, Alternative B

would increase the area where this allocation would impact travel. This would result in travel

planning that increases resource protections and minimizes nonmotorized vehicle user conflicts

with motorized vehicle users. Conversely, the decision to close the area to motorized vehicles

would result in decreased motorized access.

With the exception of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, this alternative does not

include specific travel management area designations (such as limited to designated). Instead,

these designations primarily correspond to management actions associated with ACECs and

WSAs. Impacts from special designations to trails and travel management are described below.

4.6.4.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Resource uses are accommodated through leases, permits, or other management actions. In

conducting activities associated with such authorizations, permit holders or lessees typically

are authorized through the permit, lease, or ROW to perform activities outside existing travel

management decisions and/or construct new roads to facilitate activities. Sometimes newly

constructed ROWs are not available for general public access, but on most occasions in the

planning area these are open to the public through the life of the project. Limitations on these

activities come from stipulations on surface-disturbing activities, not the travel management

designations. Therefore, resource uses in areas open (with standard stipulations) to these uses

would be the most likely to adversely impact travel management. Alternative B opens fewer acres

than Alternative A to resource uses under standard stipulations. The efficiency and enforcement

capability of travel management in these areas would be degraded due to a constant increase in

new motorized vehicle routes that result from authorizations for motorized vehicle use outside

travel designations. These actions would result in increased access but would not allow travel

planning in these areas to increase resource protections. These impacts would occur at a lower

rate under Alternative B than under Alternative A.

SRMAs are areas where recreation opportunities and outcomes are sustained through several

management decisions, including travel management. Therefore, management in SRMAs would

have the potential to impact travel management and access in these areas. Alternative B includes

seven SRMAs totaling 307,183 acres. To support SRMA management, Alternative B closes

7,500 acres to benefit nonmotorized recreation. This would result in decreased conflicts among

motorized and nonmotorized vehicle users, and enhance nonmotorized recreation opportunities

and experiences. The remaining SRMA open acreage would result in travel management that

would enhance recreational opportunities and experiences.

4.6.4.3.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative B designates 15 ACECs and makes travel planning decisions in 7 of these ACECs

to support management of the relevant and important values in these areas. These areas total

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management
1058 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

127,749 acres where travel planning focuses on enhanced resource protection and minimum

standards for access. This is an increase over Alternative A.

Alternative B closes all WSAs and proposed eligible and suitable WSRs to motorized and

mechanized travel. This management action would result in 55,338 acres managed for an

increased resource protection focus but reduced (compared to Alternative A) access. The

alternative would also result in decreased (compared to Alternative A) conflicts among

nonmotorized and motorized vehicle users by providing more areas where nonmotorized vehicle

users can go without encountering impacts from motorized vehicle users.

4.6.4.3.4. Alternative C

4.6.4.3.4.1. Program Management

Table 4.30, “Travel Management Focus under Alternative C” (p. 1058) display the acres under

Alternative C managed for increased access and increased resource protection.

Table 4.30. Travel Management Focus under Alternative C

Alternative C Travel Management Area Focus Acres

Increased Access Focus and Minimum Standard for

Resource Protection

2,337,958

Increased Resource Protection Focus and Minimum

Standard for Access

56,247

Source: BLM 2012a

4.6.4.3.4.2. Resources

Based on travel management objectives for specific areas, Alternative C would result in travel

management systems that provide an increased resource protection focus only in WSAs totaling

56,247 acres, or 2 percent of the planning area (Table 4.30, “Travel Management Focus under

Alternative C” (p. 1058)). In contrast, objectives for the rest of the planning area would result

in travel management systems that provide an increased access focus on 2,337,958 acres, or 98

percent of the planning area. This alternative allocates more acres to increased access (through

travel management planning) than Alternative A, and fewer acres to increased resource protection.

Under alternatives A, B, and D it can be assumed that as the BLM finalizes implementation of

travel management decisions more acres would move to enhanced resource protection standards.

This would not occur under Alternative C because it identifies WSAs as the only areas where

travel management would result in enhanced resource protection.

In areas not identified as closed or limited to designated roads and trails, Alternative C allows

for cross-country motorized travel to perform necessary tasks. This management would

compromise enforcement of travel decisions, placing on the BLM the burden to prove that travel

management violations are not occurring to facilitate a necessary task. In addition, this allowance

was developed during a period when motorized vehicle use typically involved trucks. Today,

motorized vehicle use involves a multitude of different vehicles and results in variable impacts to

resources. Finally, this allowance would prevent the BLM from knowing where and when the

use occurs, resulting in a situation in which resource impacts are not monitored or ever fully

quantified or understood. For these reasons, alternatives A and C would not meet the travel

management goals of enhancing sustainable access or protecting resources.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1059

Alternative C program management does not close areas to over-snow travel. The alternative

allows cross-country over-snow travel (motorized and nonmotorized) anywhere in the planning

during periods when snow is at least 12 inches deep or recognized as a groomed trail. If these

conditions do not exist, motorized over-snow vehicles are required to stay on existing roads. This

would result in enhanced access but reduced resource protections. Alternative C would result

in the most (compared to alternatives A and B) acres of access for motorized over-snow travel,

but the fewest (compared to alternatives A and B) resource protections. The minimum snow

requirements and definition for over-snow travel would provide limited resource protections over

Alternative A, which does not include any definition or snow-depth requirement for over-snow

travel.

Alternative C does not restrict or limit nonmotorized and mechanized travel.

4.6.4.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Resource uses are accommodated through leases, permits, or other management actions. In

conducting activities associated with such authorizations, permit holders or lessees typically

are authorized through the permit, lease, or ROW to perform activities outside existing travel

management decisions and/or construct new roads to facilitate activities. Sometimes newly

constructed ROWs are not available for general public access, but on most occasions in the

planning area these are open to the public through the life of the project. Limitations on these

activities come from stipulations on surface-disturbing activities, not the travel management

designations. Therefore, resource uses in areas open (with standard stipulations) to these uses

would be the most likely to adversely impact travel management. Alternative C opens more

acres to resource uses under standard stipulations than alternatives A and B. The efficiency

of travel planning and management in these areas would be limited, because more ROWs

and authorizations for motorized vehicle use outside travel designations would compromise

enforcement capabilities and render travel planning ineffective due to a constant increase in new

motorized routes. These actions would increase access, but would not allow travel planning

to facilitate increased resource protections.

SRMAs are areas where recreation opportunities and outcomes are sustained through several

management decisions, including travel management. Therefore, management in SRMAs would

have the potential to impact travel management and access in these areas. Alternative C includes

one SRMA totaling 608 acres, and makes no travel management decisions associated with

SRMAs. As with Alternative A, this would result in increased conflicts among motorized and

nonmotorized vehicle users, and decreased (compared to Alternative B) nonmotorized recreation

opportunities and experiences.

4.6.4.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not include ACECs, which would increase motorized access and limit resource

protections.

As with Alternative A, Alternative C manages motorized travel in all WSAs (except Dubois

Badlands) to the minimum travel management decision allowed in WSAs. The management

action to allow motorized and mechanized travel only on designated roads and trails that were

identified during the inventory phase of the wilderness review would result in 55,338 acres

managed for an increased resource protection focus and minimum standards for access. This

would be the same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management
1060 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.6.4.3.5. Alternative D

4.6.4.3.5.1. Program Management

Program management under Alternative D would result in impacts similar to those under

Alternative B.

4.6.4.3.5.2. Resources

Impacts from resource oriented management actions under Alternative D would be similar to

impacts under Alternative B.

Alternative D manages 34 percent (which is more than Alternative A but less than Alternative

B) of the planning area as VRM Classes I and II. Impacts associated with VRM Classes I and

II are detailed under Alternative B.

This alternative closes 4,954 acres (which is more than Alternative A but less than Alternative B)

to motorized vehicles in the Little Red Creek Complex to support wilderness characteristics in

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics. Alternative A does not specifically manage for

lands with wilderness characteristics; therefore, Alternative D would result in more impacts to

travel from this allocation. This would result in travel planning that increases resource protections

and minimizes nonmotorized vehicle user conflicts with motorized vehicle users. Conversely, the

decision to close the area to motorized vehicles would decrease motorized access.

With the exception of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics identified above, this

alternative does not include area-specific travel management designations (such as limited to

designated). Instead, these designations primarily correspond to management actions associated

with ACECs and WSAs. Impacts from special designations to trails and travel management

are described below.

4.6.4.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Resource uses are accommodated through leases, permits, or other management actions. In

conducting activities associated with such authorizations, permit holders or lessees typically

are authorized through the permit, lease, or ROW to perform activities outside existing travel

management decisions and/or construct new roads to facilitate activities. Sometimes newly

constructed ROWs are not available for general public access, but on most occasions in the

planning area these are open to the public through the life of the project. Limitations on these

activities come from stipulations on surface-disturbing activities, not the travel management

designations. Therefore, resource uses in areas open (with standard stipulations) to these uses

would be the most likely to adversely impact travel management. Alternative D opens fewer acres

than Alternative A to resource uses under standard stipulations. Impacts to travel management

and planning from opening areas to resource uses under standard stipulations are described

under Alternative B. These impacts would occur at a lower rate under Alternative D than under

Alternative A.

SRMAs are areas where recreation opportunities and outcomes are sustained through several

management decisions, including travel management. Therefore, management in SRMAs would

have the potential to impact travel management and access in these areas. Alternative C includes

seven SRMAs totaling 294,541 acres. To support SRMA management, Alternative D closes

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1061

5,195 acres to benefit nonmotorized recreation. This would result in decreased conflicts among

motorized and nonmotorized vehicle users, and enhance nonmotorized recreation opportunities

and experiences. The remaining acreage of SRMAs would result in travel management that would

provide enhanced recreational opportunities and experiences.

4.6.4.3.5.4. Special Designations

Impacts from ACECs to travel management under Alternative D would be the same as under

Alternative B.

Alternative B closes the following areas to motorized travel: Dubois Badlands WSA, Copper

Mountain WSA, Whiskey Mountain WSA, and the WSRs recommended as eligible and suitable

for inclusion in the NWSRS. This management would result in 15,276 acres (which is more

than Alternative A and less than Alternative B) managed for increased resource protections,

but reduced (compared to Alternative A) access. Alternative D would also result in decreased

(compared to Alternative A) conflicts among nonmotorized and motorized vehicle users by

providing areas where nonmotorized vehicle users can go without encountering impacts from

motorized vehicle users.

4.6.5. Livestock Grazing Management

Adverse impacts to livestock grazing management result from management actions that limit,

reduce, or prohibit livestock grazing or AUMs in the planning area. In addition, management

actions that degrade rangeland health (e.g., the condition of soils, watersheds, and vegetation

communities) and livestock forage or that restrict the placement, construction, or maintenance of

range improvement projects would result in adverse impacts. Management actions beneficial to

livestock grazing include those that increase AUMs, decrease restrictions on livestock grazing,

improve rangeland health or livestock forage, distribute or disperse livestock in ways that increase

access to forage, or reduce the cost associated with livestock grazing management.

Direct impacts to livestock grazing result from management actions that change AUM allocations

or restrict livestock grazing. Indirect impacts to livestock grazing result from management actions

that affect rangeland health and productivity or that result in a change in livestock grazing

management on BLM-administered public lands in the planning area.

4.6.5.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternative B would result in the greatest adverse impacts to livestock grazing; Alternative C

would result in the greatest beneficial impacts. Alternative B places the most restrictions on

livestock use of forage and the placement and construction of range improvements, and places

the most limitations on grazing for the protection of resources. In addition, Alternative B closes

lands in elk and bighorn sheep crucial winter range in the Dubois area, which would result in

adverse impacts from the loss of approximately 1,043 AUMs. Overtime, Alternative B would

result in the most reduction of AUMs; since range infrastructure projects would not be available

as a tool to achieve progress towards rangeland health, authorized use would need to be reduced

(either in number of animals or time on the allotment) resulting in a reduction in livestock use.

Alternative C places the fewest restrictions on livestock grazing management and expands the

areas where range improvements can be placed for use by grazing livestock. Impacts to livestock

grazing under Alternative A would generally fall somewhere between the other alternatives, and

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management
1062 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

this alternative is the most likely to apply management on a case-by-case basis. Alternative

D would result in a greater reduction in AUMs than Alternative C over the planning period,

and authorizes rangeland infrastructure only through the development of a Comprehensive

Grazing Strategy. Under Alternative D, the development of comprehensive grazing strategies

first evaluates the stocking rate of an allotment and the season of use prior to evaluating the

need for additional range infrastructure. Additional range improvement projects are considered

when compatible with other resources. Alternative D avoids the development of new rangeland

infrastructure unless a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy is considered where benefits to rangeland

health outweigh the adverse impacts.

4.6.5.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Livestock grazing is managed to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

● Grazing management practices such as season of use, kind of livestock and stocking level

modification, rest or rotational grazing, and temporary closures can maintain or improve

rangeland health to meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands requirements.

● When range improvement projects are used to improve rangeland health and/or facilitate more

efficient and effective livestock management, they would be appropriately implemented in

a manner that does not conflict with other resource values, (e.g., riparian-wetland habitats,

wildlife, greater sage-grouse, wild horses, and trails). The alternatives vary in the types of

projects authorized. Alternative B authorizes primarily non-infrastructure improvements

such as vegetative treatments and lowered stocking rates, while Alternative C emphasizes

infrastructure such as fences and water developments.

● Under all alternatives, the BLM does not define livestock grazing as a surface-disturbing

activity; therefore, livestock grazing is not precluded in areas closed or avoided for

surface-disturbing activities. However, range improvement projects are surface-disturbing

activities and subject to surface disturbance limits.

● Any changes in grazing management, including changes in grazing preference, are based

on rangeland monitoring and documented field observations, in accordance with grazing

regulations (43 CFR 4110.3).

● Surface disturbances as a result of range improvement construction, such as water

developments increases the likelihood of the introduction and spread of INNS that degrade

rangeland health and adversely impact forage quality and quantity.

● Grazing use levels may be adjusted during times of drought, or when rehabilitation plans are

being implemented after a wildfire or prescribed burn.

● Management actions for other resource uses can affect livestock grazing allocation

management, both adversely and beneficially.

● Reductions in public land grazing could increase the likelihood of fencing of private and

state lands.

● The placement of supplements can affect the distribution of livestock grazing in grassland

and shrubland communities. All alternatives require that supplements not be placed in

riparian-wetlands, although the buffer varies by alternative.

● Rangeland health assessments of all allotments within high priority watersheds will be

completed within 10 years. An average of 10 percent of the public lands will be assessed each

year during the life of this plan.

● Demand for public land grazing use will remain static. Changing economics associated with

livestock grazing are not expected to change the demand to use public lands for livestock

grazing.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1063

● Areas are identified as open or closed to livestock grazing rather than available or not

available. All alternatives close areas such as the granite rock areas of Sweetwater Rocks to

livestock grazing because of site-specific issues. Under all alternatives, 69,276 acres have

not been available for grazing since before 1987, including lands that are unsuitable, such

as rock outcroppings or road ROWs, and lands closed for wildlife habitat, such as Whiskey

Mountain. These acres do not vary by alternative and are not further analyzed. These acres

are not included in the following analysis of open and closed areas.

● For each alternative, the number of baseline AUMs available and reductions in AUMs is

adjusted for the ratio of actual use to permitted use. Active AUMs are the portion of permitted

use on a permit/lease that can be used in any given year provided the forage is available.

Actual AUMs are the AUMs actually billed for and paid for each year by the permittee/lessee.

It is assumed that livestock grazing actual use at the beginning of the planning period would

be approximately 73 percent of permitted use, which is the historical average use over the last

20 years. While the ratio of actual use to permitted use is projected to remain constant over

the life of the plan under alternatives A, C, and D, under Alternative B the ratio is projected to

increase gradually over the life of the plan to 95 percent because of substantial decreases in the

number of permitted AUMs, due primarily to adjustments to meet rangeland health standards.

4.6.5.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.6.5.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Under all management programs, dust reduction that improves air quality reduces adverse

impacts to vegetation, which ultimately affects the palatability of the forage available for

livestock. Long-term adverse impacts associated with dust can shift the plant community to a

different type and reduce species that livestock prefer. In general, the greater the reduction of

dust the less adverse impact to livestock grazing. In addition, increased dust from activities far

removed from the planning area can adversely impact vegetation and is a contributor to adverse

impacts associated with global climate change.

Management actions to prevent or mitigate soil loss generally result in beneficial impacts to

vegetation, which would increase livestock forage production and quality. All alternatives

maintain existing watershed improvement projects. Projects designed to enhance watershed

health enhance vegetative resources by reducing erosion and improving water quality, thereby

increasing forage and water for livestock over the long term. However, adjustments in livestock

management potentially needed to meet or maintain riparian-wetland habitat requirements, PFC,

and water quality objectives could result in short-term adverse impacts to livestock grazing.

Surface disturbance associated with the implementation of watershed enhancement projects

would also result in short-term site-specific adverse impacts to vegetative cover and livestock

forage. The greater the benefits to soil and water, the greater the long-term benefits to livestock

grazing would be.

Water can be a limiting factor for livestock grazing management, especially during drought, and

affects livestock health and distribution. Water developments designed to provide new water

sources for livestock would result in beneficial impacts to livestock grazing through increased

water availability. New water sources might also promote improved distribution of livestock by

opening areas to grazing where a lack of water was previously the limiting factor, so long as a

Comprehensive Grazing Strategy is in place. The alternatives vary in the extent to which water

developments are authorized. The development of new water sources on previously undeveloped

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management
1064 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

upland rangeland sites could result in resource conflicts such as with pronghorn and greater

sage-grouse, due to increased use and distribution of livestock. Although climate change could

impact the availability of water for irrigation of private lands that support the livestock grazed

on public lands, that impact is not within the scope of this analysis, which does not address

private lands issues.

Wildland fire and fuels management result in varying impacts to livestock grazing, depending on

fire size, intensity, and climatic factors. Wildland fire can result in short-term adverse impacts

such as the spread of INNS, the destruction of range improvements, the displacement of livestock,

and short-term impacts to livestock forage. With proper stabilization and rehabilitation, long-term

impacts of wildland fire are generally beneficial due to improvements in forage quality, quantity,

and availability following fires. For a period after a fire in shrubland communities, enhanced

forage production occurs as herbaceous vegetation temporarily becomes the dominant type of

vegetation in these plant communities.

Vegetation treatments designed to reduce fuel hazards, improve wildlife habitat, enhance

vegetation production or plant community health, or regenerate plant communities would result in

long-term beneficial impacts to livestock grazing by increasing forage availability. Vegetation

treatments that require rest for establishment could also result in short-term reductions in

forage available to livestock, however, in the long term, vegetation treatments generally result

in an increase in palatable forage for livestock. Management actions designed to improve

riparian-wetland vegetation and promote biodiversity would result in long-term beneficial impacts

because these systems would meet PFC. The long-term beneficial impact is that these systems

would improve water quality, quantity and forage for livestock.

The presence and extent of INNS in an area is a factor in rangeland health and forage

productivity. INNS displace native vegetation and, because they typically are unpalatable to

livestock and wildlife, often remain ungrazed. INNS can spread or become established as a

result of surface-disturbing activities, motorized vehicle use, or dispersal by grazing animals.

Surface-disturbing activities include mechanical disturbance, such as construction of well and

wind tower pads, roads, pits, reservoirs, pipelines, vegetative treatments, mining, and powerlines.

Even when reclamation occurs, allotments where surface-disturbing activities have occurred

could experience increased INNS infestations over both the short and long term. The prevention

and treatment of areas infested with INNS is required under all alternatives; management of INNS

could temporarily displace livestock and reduce available forage, but would also maintain or

improve rangeland health and forage quality over the long term. Beneficial impacts to livestock

grazing when using a different kind of animal to manage INNS would ultimately benefit the

economic picture of the permittee/lessee and the vegetative resource. By grazing leafy spurge

with domestic goats or sheep, not only the native vegetation benefits by reduced competition from

INNS, but the permittee benefits from being authorized to use the INNS with a kind of animal that

favors leafy spurge.

INNS have a direct adverse impact on livestock grazing. In the case of INNS invading rangeland

and displacing native vegetation, invasive plant species are typically unpalatable to livestock and

might even be poisonous. INNS such as halogeton can be introduced via roadways or pipelines

and then gradually spread to adjacent native vegetation, resulting in an adverse impact to available

forage for livestock. This can eventually become costly in terms of control, not only for the BLM

but also for the permittees/lessees in lost forage production. Another impact would be from

insects like grasshoppers. In years when grasshopper populations are at their peak, they can

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1065

devastate available livestock forage. Although grasshoppers tend to be a short-term impact for a

given year, INNS can result in long-term adverse impacts lasting multiple years.

Wildlife winter range and special status species habitat management adversely impact livestock

grazing by restricting the placement of range improvement projects and potentially affecting the

ability to implement grazing management practices using infrastructure. Management of greater

sage-grouse habitat affects the location, required mitigation, design standards and installation, and

cost of range improvements. In addition, the maintenance of sagebrush and understory diversity in

crucial seasonal greater sage-grouse habitat could result in an adverse impact by reducing the time

livestock could graze in an area, change seasons of use, and, in some cases, result in temporary

removal of livestock until vegetation treatments are in place or have succeeded. All alternatives

prioritize the management of greater sage-grouse in Dubois, Red Canyon, Lander Slope, Green

Mountain and greater sage-grouse Core Area, resulting in the potential for reductions in AUMs

to maintain adequate nesting cover and to maintain a higher degree of residual forage in areas

preferred by livestock such as riparian-wetland areas.

Wild horses and livestock generally rely on the same resources. The appropriate management

level for the Muskrat Basin, Rock Creek Mountain, Conant Creek, Dishpan Butte, and Green

Mountain Wild Horse HMAs was established under the Lander Resource Area 1993 ROD. For

Crooks Mountain and Cyclone Rim/Antelope Hills HMAs, the appropriate management level

was established under the May 1994 ROD and Approved Rawlins RMP. All alternatives assume

that wild horse populations will be maintained within the appropriate management level through

periodic gathers and the use of fertility control practices. Should these gathers and fertility

treatments not occur, an increase in wild horse populations could impact livestock grazing and

availability of wildlife forage. Ultimately a high number of wild horses exceeding appropriate

management level could potentially affect rangeland health.

Management of cultural and paleontological resources could adversely impact livestock

grazing through the removal of forage during site excavations, or through restrictions on the

design and placement of range improvements. For example, the BLM requires avoidance of

surface-disturbing activities in areas near significant paleontological resource sites, which could

affect the placement of range improvements where infrastructure is the management technique

employed. VRM could also affect the location or design of range improvements in visually

sensitive areas or where the project does not meet VRM objectives.

Adverse impacts to livestock grazing are generally the result of activities that affect forage

quantity/production or quality in grazing allotments, such as vegetation treatments, and

management that constrains or enhances livestock grazing management. Surface-disturbing

activities such as fire and fuels management and vegetation treatments, INNS management,

grazing and surface disturbance restrictions intended to protect resources, and proactive

management actions, result in adverse impacts to livestock grazing in the planning area. Impacts

from these activities could be adverse to livestock grazing in the very short term but should result

in beneficial impacts through improvement in vegetation condition in the long term.

Mining of locatable, leasable, and salable minerals affects soils and vegetation communities, and

results in a loss of forage in developed areas. Surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities

associated with all types of mineral and geophysical exploration and development are subject to

application of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, which helps to reduce impacts to

livestock forage through the application of standard mitigation. Compared to the other minerals,

oil and gas, followed by uranium mining, results in the largest acreage of surface disturbance

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management
1066 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and would result in the greatest short-term and long-term adverse impacts to available livestock

forage. Areas where leasable fluid minerals have been developed can be reclaimed more closely

to predisturbance conditions than areas where leasable solid minerals have been developed or

where locatable minerals have been developed using conventional mining techniques.

All alternatives include revegetation of areas disturbed during oil and gas drilling and other

operations and would reduce the long-term adverse impacts to forage associated with those

operations. There could be a permanent loss of available livestock forage in the form of limited or

lost access to grazing areas from road and industrial facility development. This could result in

temporary or long-term closure of affected allotments or reductions in the authorized number

of AUMs where there are large developed or producing gas fields, ISR uranium mining, or

open-pit extractive operations. Construction and improvement of roads associated with minerals

development could provide livestock operators with better access to livestock and enhance their

ability to maintain range improvements where infrastructure is used. Disturbed areas associated

with nonproducing wells would result in short-term impacts, because they would be reclaimed

quickly and most forage production would be restored. Although utilization levels could vary

from year to year, utilization levels that remain consistently high would not be expected to meet

watershed and vegetative management objectives. Adjustments in livestock management to meet

these objectives could result in short-term adverse impacts, and would result in long-term adverse

impacts if interim reclamation was not possible.

Land disposals or exchanges result in adverse or beneficial impacts to livestock grazing

depending on whether they reduce or increase the available acres to be grazed in the form of

AUMs in active grazing allotments. Typically, land disposals occur on small, isolated parcels

of BLM-administered land, with the goal being the consolidation of land ownership to enhance

management of resource values as, for example, the Finley 3 (No. 2102) and the Wiggins Fork

(No. 2129) allotments. BLM surface acres exchanged are no longer authorized for livestock

grazing. Exchange is the preferred method for all land tenure adjustments, and changes in

AUMs resulting from any exchange would be site-specific and depend on the qualities of both

the disposal and acquisition parcels. However, because the land acquired is often some distance

from the disposal parcels, there could be adverse impacts to individual allotments due to AUM

loss. However, if lands are acquired to consolidate holdings, there could be beneficial impacts to

livestock grazing by facilitating access.

The development of ROWs results in both short-term and long-term reductions in forage. ROW

authorizations for permanent facilities or roads result in long-term reductions in forage. Areas

where ROW authorizations include only initial disturbance are reclaimed to reduce long-term

adverse impacts to livestock grazing from reductions in forage.

Allowing motorized vehicle use and recreational use and development results in adverse impacts

to livestock grazing through damage to soils and livestock forage, but would beneficially impact

grazing management activities through improved access. Adverse impacts from allowing

motorized vehicles could include gates being left open, the displacement of livestock from heavily

used areas, a reduction in forage palatability from the spread of INNS along travel corridors, and

an increase in dust on forage near areas of heavy motorized vehicle use. Administrative access

can be given to areas closed to motorized travel where necessary.

The intent of any grazing management practice and range improvement project is to maintain or

improve the quality or quantity of forage, thereby enhancing operational flexibility. As a result

of implementing these practices, grazing permittees might see an increase in costs associated

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1067

with more livestock herding and maintenance of range improvements. Under all alternatives,

appropriate grazing management practices will be implemented to address rangeland health

objectives in the planning area. This will be accomplished in cooperation, consultation, and

coordination with grazing permittees and lessees and other interested parties.

Livestock grazing management actions are designed to maintain or enhance rangeland health,

improve forage for livestock, and to meet other multiple-use objectives. Implementation of these

actions is also expected to continue implementing the allotment categorization process used in

the 1987 RMP. Some allotments might need to be recategorized from their current classification

(Maintain, Improve, or Custodial) over time. Allotment boundaries will be managed to facilitate

grazing strategies that will help achieve rangeland health objectives. These actions could include

combining allotments and changing pasture boundaries.

Changes in kinds of livestock, numbers of livestock, and season of use are used as tools to meet

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. These actions beneficially impact vegetative

resources and ultimately provide an abundance of healthy, vigorous forage for livestock and other

grazing animals. Forage supplements placed on BLM-administered lands are required to be safe

for all classes of animals, including wild horses and wildlife. Stock driveways continue to be

authorized in the planning area. Long-term grazing strategies recognize the need for successful

reclamation objectives and are used to meet these objectives. Successful reclamation ensures that

vegetation will be established as soon as site-specific conditions allow and will be placed back

into production and available for livestock grazing.

All alternatives allow the development of range improvement projects (e.g., fences and spring

developments) in portions of the planning area, but Alternative B severely restricts such projects.

Rangeland improvement projects allow livestock managers and permittees/lessees to better

implement grazing management practices and manage the distribution and movement of livestock

within allotments. Adverse impacts associated with the construction of fencing, stock-water

pipelines, and other rangeland improvements include long-term impacts to forage surrounding

the project, and could include undesirable changes to livestock grazing patterns and distribution

within an allotment, congregation of livestock around new water sources and fence lines, and

changes in livestock trailing patterns that alter vegetation or affect rangeland health. Any

long-term adverse impacts from rangeland improvements would be site-specific.

Table 4.31, “Estimated Reduction in AUMs by Alternative” (p. 1068) provides a summary of

initial AUMs and total AUMs lost over the life of the plan.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management
1068 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 4.31. Estimated Reduction in AUMs by Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Permitted AUMs

Initial Permitted

AUMs

280,813 280,813 280,813 280,813

Permitted AUMs Lost

(over the life of the

plan)

1,414 152,054 30,222 51,808

Net Permitted AUMs

in 2027

279,399 128,759 250,491 229,005

Actual AUMs

Initial Actual AUMs 204,993 204,993 204,993 204,993

Actual AUMs Lost

(over the life of the

plan)

1,031 82,672 22,135 37,820

Net Actual AUMs in

2027

203,962 122,321 182,858 167,173

Source: BLM 2011b

Note: Permitted AUMs are AUMs that are allowed on a permit/lease that can be used on any given year

provided the forage is available. Actual AUMs are the AUMs actually billed for and paid for each year by the

permittee/lessee. The ratio of historical average authorized use to permitted use in the planning area is 73 percent.

As noted in Methods and Assumptions, the ratio of actual use to permitted used under Alternative B is projected to

increase gradually over the life of the plan to 95 percent. See the Appendix L (p. 1583) for further discussion

regarding the methodology used to estimate AUM loss.

AUM Animal Unit Month

4.6.5.3.2. Alternative A

4.6.5.3.2.1. Program Management

Under Alternative A, 2,324,934 acres, or 99 percent of all surface acres in the planning area are

open to livestock grazing; no acres are closed to grazing, although, as under all alternatives,

approximately 69,276 acres are unavailable to grazing. Management of livestock grazing is

designed to provide for protection or enhancement of other resource values. Areas excluded

from livestock grazing total 2,056 acres and include campgrounds and certain riparian-wetland

and vegetation monitoring exclosures. However, those acres are not considered closed under

Alternative A. As indicated in the above table, Alternative A would authorize the greatest number

of AUMs, both in the short term and over time.

Range improvements are important to grazing livestock under Alternative A. The range

improvements that are in disrepair or not functioning as originally planned would be abandoned

and reclaimed. However, this could adversely impact livestock grazing by removing a water

source or fencing that might be needed to facilitate grazing management. If water was removed,

livestock grazing pressure would shift to other areas in an allotment, causing higher utilization

in some areas. This could essentially reduced available forage for livestock and could require a

stocking rate adjustment.

Alternative A requires that range improvement projects be designed to meet allotment

management objectives on a case-by-case basis. The focus of these projects under Alternative A

is to meet multiple-use objectives. Continued placement of these improvement projects considers

other resource values, but the emphasis is on opening areas not previously grazed by livestock.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1069

Some projects, such as water developments, would still experience impacts from livestock

congregating around these water sources. If a grazing management plan is not established or

is not successful, then these impacts could be adverse to the surrounding vegetation through

trampling and congregation of animals.

On a case-by-case basis, forage utilization levels by livestock are established to benefit and

promote healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystems. Forage utilization levels limit forage

consumed by livestock in sensitive areas, such as riparian-wetland areas. Forage utilization

levels are generally measured using forage height/weight criteria based on height/weight curves.

Placement of salt or mineral supplements would continue, and these would be placed no closer

than 1⁄4 mile to water. There would be more impacts to riparian-wetland systems with this minimal

distance, but it would provide some relief from the impacts of livestock.

This alternative does not include forage reserve allotments, which would reduce the flexibility of

providing alternative forage options to permittees whose allotments are rested following rangeland

restoration activities or temporarily closed to livestock grazing due to severe drought conditions.

4.6.5.3.2.2. Resources

Alternative A management actions to prevent or mitigate soil loss generally result in beneficial

impacts to vegetation, which increases livestock forage production and quality. This alternative

maintains existing watershed improvement projects, uses BMPs to reduce runoff, soil erosion,

and sediment yield, and subjects all surface-disturbing activities associated with mineral and

geophysical exploration and development to application of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands. Projects designed to enhance watershed health enhance vegetation resources by

reducing erosion and improving water quality, thereby increasing forage and water for livestock

over the long term. However, adjustments in livestock management that might be needed to meet

or maintain riparian-wetland habitat requirements, PFC, and water quality objectives could result

in temporary adverse impacts. Surface disturbance associated with the implementation of such

watershed enhancement projects would also result in short-term site-specific adverse impacts to

vegetative cover and livestock forage.

Vegetation treatments would also result in short-term reductions in forage amount, though

they may improve forage quality, even though they are designed and conducted in accordance

with the rangeland health requirements in the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Vegetation treatments designed to reduce fuel hazards, improve wildlife habitat, enhance

vegetation production or plant community health, or regenerate plant communities result in

long-term beneficial impacts to livestock grazing by increasing forage availability. Silvicultural

treatments, which are authorized under this alternative, would move areas toward a different seral

stage make more forage available for livestock grazing by stimulating herbaceous plant growth in

the forest and woodland understory.

Alternative A wildlife and special status species habitat management would affect livestock

grazing by continuing to restrict the placement of range improvement projects to the smallest

footprint on the land; such decision would be made on a case-by-case basis. Approvals for new

fences approval, fence modifications, or fence removals are decided case by case so as to not

affect big game migration corridors or cause other wildlife displacement. Restrictions on fencing

adversely impact livestock grazing by reducing the distribution of livestock in some areas, but

these decisions are made case by case. Under Alternative A, the BLM anticipates projects would

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management
1070 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

continue to be built at the same rate as in the past 20 years, with approximately 43 acres of

new disturbance each year.

Alternative A management of special status plant species could adversely affect livestock grazing

if a new special status plant species is discovered and it is determined that grazing would impact

that species. Grazing acreage could be lost to protect the plant and its habitat.

Special status species management under Alternative A would result in a minor adverse impact

to livestock grazing. Seasons of use in grizzly bear and wolf habitat might need to be adjusted,

but this would be only a minor inconvenience to the permittees rather than an adverse impact to

grazing management. A more substantial adverse impact would result from management for the

protection of greater sage-grouse. Alternative A closes a 1⁄4-mile buffer around greater sage-grouse

leks to surface disturbance, including water development and other range improvement projects.

However, only 785 acres within the 1⁄4-mile buffer are not already served by a water development

project. Other than seasonal limitations on when range improvement projects can be built,

Alternative A does not limit projects in greater sage-grouse nesting areas.

Cultural and paleontological resources management under Alternative A allows development with

restrictions to protect these resources. These programs require surveys and inventories on acres of

proposed rangeland improvement projects, which could adversely impact grazing management

by requiring relocation of projects to avoid conflicts. Surveys and inventories would determine

whether a range improvement project could be placed in a desired location to facilitate livestock

grazing. Site-specific mitigation measures are applied when necessary. Under this alternative the

grazing program would continue to benefit from rangeland improvements that are placed to avoid

or mitigate adverse impacts to cultural and paleontological resources.

Depending on their visibility, range improvement projects in areas managed as VRM Class I or II

might need to be designed to minimize their contrast with the surrounding landscape or placed

in locations where they would be less likely to attract the attention of viewers. In Class I and

II areas, this could result in adverse impacts to grazing management through additional costs to

permittees and restrictions on the placement of range improvements. Acres of VRM Classes I

and II are identified in the Visual Resources section. All range improvement projects must be

analyzed against the VRM criteria to determine if there would be conflicts; VRM Classes III

and IV allow more contrast.

4.6.5.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Resource uses under Alternative A are projected to result in approximately 12,439 acres of surface

disturbance on BLM-administered land in the long term. This disturbance would result in the loss

of approximately 1,414 permitted AUMs over the life of the plan. Appendix T (p. 1641) lists the

projected surface disturbance for each alternative by the source of the disturbance.

Locatable minerals, leasable minerals, and mineral materials disposals activities adversely affect

livestock grazing because of direct forage loss. Short-term impacts of immediate forage loss

results from land being explored for oil and gas, bentonite, phosphate, gold, and uranium (see

the Final Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report for the Lander Field Office

Planning Area [BLM 2009b] and Chapter 3 for a discussion of the minerals in the planning

area). If the exploration does not yield sufficient potential for development, then the land is

reclaimed and put back into forage production for livestock grazing. If development of the

mineral resource goes forward, there are long-term adverse impacts to grazing in terms of lost

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1071

acres for livestock grazing. These long-term adverse impacts are from installation of production

facilities, permanent oil/gas pads, access roads, and open-pit mining activity to harvest mineral

commodities. Beneficial impacts to grazing from minerals activities can be the discharge of

produced water, in some cases improving distribution of grazing animals in the area or allotment

where the produced water is available.

Land tenure can adversely impact livestock grazing if lands are disposed of through sale or

exchange and the grazing allotment is now privately owned. Historically, land tenure has not

caused adverse impacts to grazing permittees. Most of the public lands within the planning

area are contiguous and land exchanges are few. A reduction in cattle and/or sheep numbers

would impact permittee/lessee income levels from a loss in total number of livestock that the

permittee/lessee could graze on public land. However, in the case of land exchange, land can be

“blocked” to make larger more manageable units where livestock grazing would be authorized.

This authorization would beneficially impact permittees and lessees by creating a larger, more

viable grazing operation. Decisions about whether acquired lands would be available to livestock

grazing would be made on a case-by-case basis.

Under Alternative A, 2,113,512 acres are open for industrial wind-energy development (as

opposed to test sites or meteorological towers) subject to site-specific analysis. Adverse impacts

to livestock grazing from wind-energy development are the surface-disturbing activities to

develop pads, powerlines, and roads to operate wind-energy areas and to transmit the generated

electricity. In areas of winter grazing, large ice crystals can build up on turbine blades and can be

launched several hundred feet from the turbine, potentially killing or injuring livestock that graze

in these areas. Small-scale solar and wind-energy projects to supply power for range improvement

projects are analyzed and authorized through the range programs and are not considered under the

lands and realty program.

Impacts from ROWs can affect livestock grazing when reclamation is not successful, particularly

those involving linear features such as pipelines. In some cases, these ROWs might need to be

fenced to protect seedlings from livestock. Fencing could prevent distribution of livestock by

blocking travel corridors that cattle use to access water and forage. In addition, new seedlings

attract livestock to new succulent growth of immature plants. To achieve successful reclamation,

livestock might need to be temporarily removed from the allotment the ROW corridor runs

through, which would adversely impact the permittee/lessee.

Under Alternative A, recreation management on public lands would not impact livestock grazing.

Recreationists are able to use public lands as designated without any substantial conflicts between

them and livestock use. Alternative A closes approximately 5,923 acres to motorized vehicle

use. However, administrative access for permittees is available even in closed areas to access

to livestock and range improvements, so this would not result in an adverse impact to livestock

grazing.

4.6.5.3.2.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative A, special designations, including WSRs and ACECs, generally would not

result in adverse impacts to livestock grazing. All areas historically open to grazing are open

under this alternative. Livestock grazing management prescriptions for acquired lands in the

Lander Slope, Red Canyon, Dubois, East Fork, Beaver Rim, Green Mountain, Cedar Ridge,

Castle Gardens, Sweetwater Rocks and Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

ACECs are determined on a case-by-case basis. However, special designations adversely impact

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management
1072 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

livestock grazing because range improvement projects and salt and mineral supplement sites must

be at least 1⁄4 mile away from each side of designated portions of NHTs and Regional Historic

Trails, or hidden from the visible horizon, whichever is closer. To protect the historic setting

of NHTs, rangeland developments might need to be relocated, which would adversely impact

livestock grazing because it could limit or preclude locating the development in the most optimal

place for proper livestock management.

4.6.5.3.3. Alternative B

4.6.5.3.3.1. Program Management

Under Alternative B, 2,312,095 acres, or 98 percent of the planning area, are open to livestock

grazing and management is designed to provide for protection or enhancement of other resource

values. Areas closed to livestock grazing are associated with campground, riparian-wetlands

and other exclosures, and the following five allotments: Bear Creek No. 2112, CM Ranch No.

2126, Lime Kiln Gulch No. 2103, Spence 23 No. 2114, and Sweetwater Canyon Pasture within

Silver Creek Common Allotment No. 1903. These five areas comprise a total of 12,839 more

acres (less than 1⁄2 percent of the total) closed to grazing under Alternative B but not closed under

Alternative A. The 2,056 acres of campgrounds and exclosures closed under Alternative B are the

same locations excluded, but not closed, under Alternative A. As indicated in the above table,

Alternative B would authorize the fewest AUMs both in the short term and increasingly over time

as monitoring indicates a need to reduce grazing use in order to meet rangeland health.

Alternative B uses non-infrastructure livestock grazing management to maintain and enhance

rangeland health, including reduced utilization and lower AUMs. Treatments of vegetation such as

prescribed fires, mowing, and herbicide treatments enhance forage for livestock grazing. Adverse

impacts to livestock grazing would be short-term immediately following a treatment. Long-term

beneficial impacts to livestock grazing would outweigh the short-term impacts of treatment.

Adverse impacts to livestock grazing under this alternative would result from a prohibition on new

range improvements if they would cause adverse impacts to other resource values. Installation

of range improvements in greater sage-grouse habitat or in crucial winter range could adversely

impact these resources. The development and installation of new fences, for example would not be

authorized in areas that are traditional migration corridors for big game animals and wild horses.

Alternative B removes or modifies existing fences and cattleguards to enhance other resource

values where there are opportunities do so. For example woven wire fences designed for domestic

sheep grazing on allotments no longer grazed by sheep would be converted to fences that

effectively manage cattle, but reduce impacts to wildlife (i.e., pronghorn). Beneficial impacts

include the ability of livestock to use high-quality forage throughout the allotment without

fences restricting their movements. Conversely, forage-use levels in sensitive areas such as

riparian-wetlands would be reached faster unless active livestock herding is utilized, which would

be an adverse impact to grazing because it would require removing the cattle sooner that planned.

Under Alternative B, on an allotment-by-allotment basis, stocking rates would be established to

achieve an adequate residual cover for wildlife and wild horses with a likelihood that utilization

would not exceed 21 to 40 percent, or light use. This use level would be adverse to livestock

grazing because utilization would need to be monitored to ensure that utilization levels did not

exceed this range. An adverse impact would occur to the permittee/lessee from a reduction in

grazing time on the allotment, causing a reduction in forage consumption by their livestock

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1073

and likely to lead to greatly reduced AUMs over time. Another adverse impact to grazing

permittees/lessees would occur as a result of permittees/lessees having to spend more time herding

their livestock than what has traditionally happened. This would mean the permittee/lessee would

need to find alternative pasture or forage for the livestock if they are required to come off the

BLM grazing allotment. A beneficial impact from light use would be that it would provide

higher quality forage to livestock. It would also provide an increase in soil moisture, resulting in

a greener, healthier forage later into the grazing season. Overall, light use under Alternative B

would result in more adverse impacts to livestock grazing management than moderate use under

Alternative A. To achieve light use, numbers of livestock would need to be adjusted or livestock

would need to be moved more frequently to avoid a higher use level.

Salt and mineral supplements can be placed no closer than 1⁄2 mile to water, riparian-wetlands,

and early highways and historic trails, twice the distance of Alternative A. Also, no supplements

can be placed within 0.6 mile of a greater sage-grouse lek. No salt or mineral supplements

would be placed on areas being reclaimed or within 3 miles either side of a National Historic

or Scenic Trail. These distances are greater than under Alternative A and would result in more

adverse impacts to livestock as they would have to travel further to reach the salt and mineral

supplements. A benefit of this would be increased livestock distribution and utilization of forage.

Alternative B establishes and manages forage reserve allotments as opportunities arise on a

voluntary basis, resulting in beneficial impacts to livestock grazing. Forage reserve allotments

increase management flexibility and the ability to rest allotments following vegetation treatments,

allowing more intensive vegetation treatments and the temporary removal of livestock for more

effective rangeland recovery. Intensive vegetation treatments contribute to vegetation class

diversity and greater long-term forage production, but also temporarily decrease forage in treated

areas. Forage reserve allotments would also be used during severe droughts, providing relief to

grazing operators on those allotments affected by severe drought that require rest. Additionally,

forage reserve allotments would be used to provide forage for livestock permittees who have

experienced wildfire on their allotment and cannot graze them until the recovery period is

over. In this regard, Alternative B would result in more beneficial impacts to livestock grazing

and management than Alternative A.

4.6.5.3.3.2. Resources

Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing activities such as range improvements on slopes

greater than 15 percent. This would result in a greater adverse impact to livestock grazing than

Alternative A (which prohibits such activities on slopes greater than 25 percent) to the extent it

limits using infrastructure so livestock could access additional acres of forage. This management

would be more beneficial than Alternative A by improving water and air quality through reducing

the amount of surface disturbance over Alternative A. Although the use of native plants could

slow reclamation time, the vegetative cover requirements under this alternative would result in

greater long-term beneficial impacts to livestock than Alternative A by requiring native species

that will help meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands for wildlife. Long-term

beneficial impacts to forage quality and stability would also result from the reestablishment of

native plant communities.

Avoiding surface-disturbing and disruptive activities under Alternative B would affect more

acreage than the other alternatives, and would result in more adverse impacts to the construction

of range improvements and the management of livestock. Under this alternative, these activities

could not occur in groundwater recharge areas, which would adversely impact the livestock

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management
1074 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

grazing program because avoidance might require the redesign of a project to eliminate any

potential adverse impacts to water quality from the activity. This management prescription would

result in an adverse impact to grazing that would not result under Alternative A.

Vegetation treatments to reduce hazardous fuels are projected to be highest under Alternative B,

which would result in the greatest projected beneficial impact to long-term forage production.

Funds Alternative A utilizes for range infrastructure projects are available under Alternative B for

vegetation treatments. To the extent that these funds were used for fuels reduction, risk of forage

loss due to landscape-level wildfires would be reduced. However, other fire management under

Alternative B would be less beneficial than Alternative A because Alternative B reintroduces

fire into its historic role in the ecology of the planning area. This would have the potential to

increase the likelihood of landscape-level fires, which would result in a short-term adverse impact

to livestock, with the potential for long-term adverse impacts if soil resources and seed bed

are damaged. However, short-term adverse impacts could be followed by long-term beneficial

impacts from vigorous regrowth.

Alternative B includes the most acreage of vegetation treatments. Because a large number of

allotments do not currently meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, Alternative B

would result in the greatest beneficial impact toward improving vegetation conditions through

vegetative treatment to achieve or make progress toward achieving rangeland health in all

grasslands and shrublands. This alternative would be the most effective at moving these

vegetative communities toward a transitional state within the ecological site where improved

forage for livestock and other beneficial impacts to rangeland health described under Alternative

A would be greater. However, unless a forage reserve is available for livestock in any rest period

following treatment, there would be a short-term adverse impact to grazing associated with

more vegetation treatment.

Requiring livestock operators to withhold placing their livestock on BLM-administered lands for

a period of 72 hours (flushing) to reduce the spread of INNS would adversely impact grazing

permittees/lessees on a short-term basis. This requirement is difficult to implement because

holding livestock prior to grazing public land is stressful on calves and lambs and would require

hauling drinking water if the holding areas did not have water. It also could be difficult to obtain

certified weed-free hay, especially in spring when hay is costly and in short supply. Impacts to

livestock grazing management would be the construction of holding facilities throughout the

planning area to ensure livestock do not transport INNS seed onto public lands. However, if the

holding facilities were located on private lands, this would not be an impact for BLM-administered

lands within the planning area. The beneficial impacts of implementing this strategy would

be an overall net reduction in the spread of INNS on BLM-administered lands, and insulating

permittees/lessees who manage their private lands to avoid the spread of INNS from less careful

permittees. Long term, public land grazing permittees would have an incentive to reduce INNS on

their private lands to avoid the costs associated with flushing before moving their livestock onto

BLM-administered lands, which would be a long-term beneficial impact to livestock grazing.

Impacts from allowing the natural healing capacity of the land to make progress toward meeting

PFC objectives would result in a substantially short-term adverse impact to livestock grazing.

This progress would be accomplished primarily by managing the season of use and avoiding

hot-season grazing (mid June through mid September) to successfully allow the land to heal. This

would require that livestock be herded away from riparian-wetland areas, deferred from use, or

other forms of grazing management to avoid adverse impacts to these systems. Moreover, it is

possible that the identified natural community could not be established: many ecological sites

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1075

have state and transition pathways that show that no management may not heal the land and that

only intervention with livestock or physical means may improve land health, such as a dominant

cheatgrass site that has lost perennial grass species.

However, reductions in AUMs or change of season would occur only after monitoring and

rangeland health assessments are completed. It is estimated that 5 percent of the allotments per

year will be assessed, so any reductions would be incremental and would occur only on allotments

that did not meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Similarly, beneficial impacts to

livestock grazing from improvements in rangeland health would also be achieved at a rate of 5

percent per year, which could be slower than under Alternative A. Restricting the placement

of salt or mineral supplements would result in greatest beneficial impact under Alternative B,

because the buffer width under Alternative B is 1⁄2 mile from water and riparian-wetlands,

would improve livestock distribution and utilization of upland vegetation. Additional long-term

beneficial impacts include the reestablishment of healthy rangelands that provide sustainable

livestock use into the future.

Compared to Alternative A, wildlife management actions under Alternative B would result in

more adverse impacts to livestock grazing. Under Alternative B, the BLM does not authorize

the construction of new fences and may remove existing fences to reduce habitat fragmentation.

Although fences would be removed only as opportunities arise, no new fences are likely to be

built under Alternative B, whereas the historic rate for building new fences would continue under

Alternative A. While on a long-term basis livestock grazing would benefit by improvements in

rangeland health through lower livestock use, the immediate impact following implementation of

this alternative would be adverse as stocking places would be reduced.

Alternative B prohibits range improvement projects within 1⁄2 mile of BLM sensitive plant

species habitat, unless a benefit to plant species would be achieved, which would result in

more adverse impacts to the grazing program than Alternative A, which does not include such

prohibitions. However, these adverse impacts would be of little quantitative importance because

very few sensitive status species plants have been located or mapped, and some plants are in areas

inaccessible to livestock, particularly Barneby's clover.

Other impacts to livestock grazing under Alternative B that would not occur under Alternative A

are that forage allocations are implemented to meet big game herd requirements. By allocating

forage to wildlife, there would be an adverse impact to livestock grazing through a reduction in

available AUMs or forage available for livestock grazing. This would result in direct adverse

impacts to the ability of permittees/lessees to maximize the use of public lands for grazing.

Greater sage-grouse management under Alternative B would result in substantially more adverse

impacts to livestock grazing than under Alternative A. Alternative B does not adopt the Core Area

concept, but instead buffers all leks by 0.6 mile and closes all greater sage-grouse nesting habitat

to water developments. Approximately 56 percent of the planning area, some 1,339,609 acres,

are in greater sage-grouse nesting habitat. However, most of this area is already served by water

development projects. Only 225,833 acres (17 percent of nesting habitat) are more than 2 miles

from a water development project, the maximum distance livestock will walk to obtain water.

In addition, 16,283 acres (0.7 percent) of nesting habitat is within 1⁄4 mile of the perimeters

of leks, which are closed to surface disturbance, including water development projects, under

Alternative A.

For the Dubois area, Alternative B implements changes in season of use to avoid conflicts with

grizzly bears, which would result in an adverse impact to livestock grazing. This change in season

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management
1076 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

of use likely would occur on or about June 1. Changing the turnout date would result in short-term

adverse impacts to livestock operations in the Dubois Area. Permittees/lessees would not be able

to move livestock off of their hay meadows until June 1, thus affecting annual hay production.

This would also impact livestock nutritional needs, since animals that need to consume green

grass at that time of year to aid in the production of milk for their growing calves would not have

access to pastures on BLM-administered land. Grazing permittees would not be able to take

advantage of the high-protein that new forage offers in spring. Beneficial impacts to rangeland

vegetation and reduction in conflict with grizzly bears, currently a threatened and endangered

species and BLM sensitive species, would be long-term. Vegetation would be able to achieve near

mature growth and bears will have dispersed from hibernation dens and will have followed elk

and their calves, rather than livestock. Managing to support grizzly bears would help support

bear populations and thereby avoid more adverse management associated with grizzly population

recovery. On a long-term basis, livestock grazing strategies that resulted in “take” of grizzly bears

would need to be resolved in the bears' favor with adverse consequences to livestock grazing.

Impacts from wild horse management under Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A,

except that fences would be removed or modified on a case-by-case basis to reduce impacts

to wild horses in HMAs. Reduction of fences would adversely impact livestock grazing

because livestock would not distribute properly and would congregate in some riparian-wetland

areas. Livestock could move outside their traditional use areas and might even cross allotment

boundaries if fences were removed or modified. This would adversely impact vegetation in areas

where livestock congregate and thus adversely impact livestock grazing.

Impacts to livestock grazing from management of cultural and paleontological resources under

Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A, except there would be minor additional adverse

impacts in site-specific locations where Alternative B prohibits range improvement projects.

4.6.5.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Resource uses under Alternative B are projected to result in approximately 7,503 acres of surface

disturbance on BLM-administered land in the long term. This disturbance would result in the

loss of approximately 853 permitted AUMs over the life of the plan, the least of any alternative.

Appendix T (p. 1641) lists the projected surface disturbance for each alternative by the source of

the disturbance.

Under Alternative B, impacts to livestock grazing from locatable and leasable minerals

development and mineral materials sales would be similar to Alternative A, although more

beneficial as there would be fewer surface disturbances from these activities under Alternative

B. Because Alternative B closes many more areas to surface disturbance, there would be direct

beneficial impacts to vegetation and therefore benefits to livestock grazing. It is not possible to

quantify on a planning area basis whether these beneficial impacts would exceed the adverse

impacts of restrictions on new infrastructure.

Alternative B closes approximately 71,761 acres of BLM-administered land to motorized vehicle

use, a sizeable increase from the 5,923 acres under Alternative A, which would beneficially

impact rangeland health and forage palatability for livestock grazing than the other alternatives.

Alternative B closes the Sweetwater Canyon pasture of the Silver Creek Allotment to livestock

grazing because of conflicts with recreational use. The impact to livestock grazing would be

adverse because approximately 1,074 permitted AUMs would be cancelled in the planning area.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1077

This would cause an adjustment on an allotment-wide basis for the loss in the Sweetwater Canyon

Pasture. This would impact income and the ability of permittees/lessees to meet operating costs.

4.6.5.3.3.4. Special Designations

Only 12,839 acres that are specially designated are closed to livestock grazing, which would

result in very little additional adverse impact than that described under Alternative A. For

all ACECs except South Pass, Alternative B prohibits new range improvement projects; this

would adversely impact livestock grazing compared to Alternative A, which considers range

improvement projects on a case-by-case basis.

Alternative B closes the area within 2 miles of the RHT&EHs to range improvement projects,

which would result in more adverse impacts than Alternative A, which generally applies a 1⁄4-mile

buffer. However, only 47,618 acres in the 4-mile wide buffer are farther than 2 miles from

water, so it is not clear how much more adverse this management would be to livestock grazing

compared to Alternative A. In addition, Alternative B does not allow range improvement projects

that do not meet VRM objectives within 2 to 5 miles of the ACEC.

Alternative B management of Congressionally Designated Trails would be substantially more

adverse to livestock grazing than Alternative A management because Alternative B closes a much

larger area around the trails to range improvement projects. However, all but 84,711 acres in the

trails buffer is in the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC, which is closed

to range improvement projects under Alternative B. Of the areas within trails buffers but outside

the ACEC, only 33,335 acres are more than 2 miles from water; therefore those would be the only

locations the Alternative B prohibition on water developments would adversely impact livestock

grazing management. In addition, fencing would not be allowed on these areas.

Alternative B management would also adversely impact the construction of range improvements

along recommended eligible and suitable WSRs, but these are considered on a case-by-case basis

depending on whether they enhance outstanding values and do not adversely impact WSRs. Thus,

Alternative B would result in impacts to livestock grazing from this type of special designation

similar to Alternative A.

4.6.5.3.4. Alternative C

4.6.5.3.4.1. Program Management

Under Alternative C, 2,324,934 surface acres are available for livestock grazing; no areas are

closed to grazing. The alternative excludes, but does not close, campgrounds and other exclosures

totaling 2,056 acres.

Management under Alternative C would be more beneficial to livestock grazing due to its focus on

maximizing livestock forage use through the maximum implementation of range improvements

instead of the protection or enhancement of other resource values, than Alternative B but likely to

authorize fewer AUMs than Alternative A. (Note: all alternatives must meet rangeland health

standards.) However, the alternative presents the greatest risk of adverse impacts from failure

of high-intensity grazing systems and the greatest risk of managing livestock grazing so as to

contribute to the listing of the greater sage-grouse under the ESA.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management
1078 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Range improvement projects under Alternative C are designed to maximize livestock forage and

distribution. All infrastructure and non-infrastructure improvements are utilized to maintain,

enhance, and achieve rangeland health. This would provide the maximum acres possible

throughout the planning area for livestock grazing. Installing more range improvement projects

on the land could increase available AUMs over actual use under Alternative A and still meet the

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Such an increase would require extraordinarily

successful grazing on every acre through implementation of a large-scale range improvement

program under which 150 new water projects, 735 miles of riparian-wetland fencing, and 220

miles of pasture division fencing would be installed during the planning period, or 100 acres per

year of surface disturbance. It is likely that this level of infrastructure would support the AUMs

identified in the above table.

On an allotment-by-allotment basis in permit renewals, residual vegetation following livestock

grazing would be similar to Alternative A with a likelihood that utilizations levels would be 41 to

60 percent, or moderate use, in areas livestock prefer. This action would ensure more forage for

livestock than Alternative B and would be a beneficial impact to livestock grazing, at least in

the short term. Impacts from salt or mineral supplement sites would be similar to those under

Alternative A. Acquired lands are open to grazing. This would provide additional or new acreage

for a permittee/lessee to apply for grazing use.

Alternative C does not establish forage reserves. Not having a forage reserve would reduce

flexibility for livestock operators to graze other areas if they were not able to use their allotment

due to landscape-level fire, vegetative treatments, or reclamation activities. Compared to

Alternative B, Alternative C would adversely impact livestock grazing by reducing flexibility for

the permittee/lessee to use forage reserves.

4.6.5.3.4.2. Resources

Alternative C requires avoidance of surface-disturbing activities on slopes greater than 25 percent

unless no resource damage would result, generally the same as Alternative A and with fewer

adverse impacts to livestock grazing than Alternative B. This provides more acreage available for

installation of range improvement projects in areas with steeper slopes. Compared to Alternative

B, Alternative C would make more acres of forage available for livestock grazing, but would

present a greater risk of adverse impacts to soil, and therefore, vegetation in both the short term

and long term. These would be indirect adverse impacts to livestock grazing.

Alternative C management of produced water and riparian-wetland areas would beneficially

impact livestock grazing more than Alternative A or Alternative B. Surface disposal of produced

water under Alternative C would result in a more beneficial impact to livestock grazing than

Alternative A because Alternative C requires that discharged water be put to a beneficial use (e.g.,

for livestock watering). This alternative has fewer adverse impacts to grazing than Alternative B

because there are fewer protections of floodplains or riparian-wetland areas, potentially increasing

permittee/lessee flexibility in the placement of range improvements to maximize livestock

grazing use in these areas.

Alternative C uses range betterment funds for infrastructure, and to a lessor extent vegetative

treatments. Therefore, there would be fewer fire and fuels treatments under Alternative C,

increasing the risk of forage loss due to landscape-level wildfires and increasing stress related to

finding pasture for livestock following wildfires similar to Alternative A. However, this would be

less beneficial than Alternative B, which uses range improvement funds for vegetation treatments

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1079

rather than emphasizing infrastructure development and establishes forage reserves. Rest and

deferment of treated areas would continue under Alternative C, which would result in a short-term

adverse impact but a long-term beneficial impact to livestock grazing.

Alternative C includes less acreage of vegetation treatments to improve vegetation conditions

and increase forage production than Alternative B, because it allocates funds for fences, water

developments, and other grazing management infrastructure. Alternative C relies on intense

grazing management to produce usable forage for livestock grazing, thereby benefiting the

livestock grazing management if successful. This would be more beneficial to livestock grazing

than the Alternative B management toward achieving historical community structure and

composition of the vegetation.

Like Alternative A, there is less fire and fuels treatment under Alternative C, which would result

in a greater risk of forage loss due to landscape-level wildfires, and additional stress related to

finding pasture for livestock following wildfires compared to Alternative B, which uses range

improvement funds for vegetation treatments rather than infrastructure and establishes forage

reserves. Rest and deferment of treated areas would continue under Alternative C; however,

Alternative C places more emphasis on using short-term methods, such as electric fencing, of

deferring or resting areas from livestock grazing because forage reserves would not be available

under Alternative C. Forest and woodlands management under Alternative C would result in the

greatest beneficial impact to forage for livestock. Alternative C allows the most timber harvesting

of any alternative, and earlier precommercial thinning and larger clear-cuts than Alternative A,

which would improve these areas for livestock grazing. Alternative C also manages juniper and

limber pine stands to enhance livestock grazing. Activities that control juniper encroachment or

stimulate herbaceous growth in the forest and woodland understory would result in a beneficial

impact to grazing from increased forage production. As under all alternatives, the lack of local

market demand for forest products is a factor that limits BLM ability to successfully manage

forest products.

Under this alternative, the intensity and frequency of wildfires would be less than under other

alternatives because there would be less fine fuels due to a higher level of livestock forage

utilization. However, over the long term, heavier grazing would slowly change the composition of

vegetation to a less desirable mix of plant species as described in the NRCS's Ecological Site

Guides and Transition Models. This would be similar to impacts under Alternative A and more

impacts than under Alternative B, which allows only light use.

Salt or mineral supplements would be placed in historically unused areas to maximize livestock

forage use. Although this would allow livestock greater use of upland vegetation, it would likely

adversely impact upland vegetation because cattle would congregate in the areas. These adverse

impacts to livestock grazing would be direct, because cattle would congregate and focus on salt

or mineral supplement sites and riparian-wetland areas and not properly distribute across the

landscape. This would cause lower livestock weights and place additional stress on concentrated

animals; however, salt or mineral supplements, where they increase livestock distribution, will

increase available forage and nutrition.

Alternative C does not require livestock flushing to prevent the spread of INNS. This action would

beneficially impact permittees with INNS problems on their private lands by reducing operating

costs and allowing more flexibility to move herds without the need to quarantine them. However,

it could result in long-term adverse impacts by increasing the potential for establishment and

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management
1080 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

spread of INNS, which could reduce forage and impact permittees who maintain INNS-free

forage on their private lands.

Alternative C management of riparian-wetland resources utilizes all management tools, including

rangeland improvements, to make progress toward achieving PFC. These management tools

would beneficially impact livestock grazing because more projects would be made available to

improve livestock distribution away from riparian-wetland systems and likely would result in the

most rapid improvement of riparian-wetland areas, so long as herbivory is excluded. In some

cases, this would not provide additional acres of livestock forage that might have been grazed by

livestock previously. Over the planning period, approximately 735 miles of new riparian-wetland

fence would be built to benefit riparian-wetland areas. In contrast, it is not likely that there

would be new fences under Alternative B. New fence construction under Alternative C would

beneficially impact livestock grazing by creating more pastures through which operators could

rotate their livestock and provide approximately 150 new water projects. These new water

projects, in conjunction with additional fencing, would increase flexibility for livestock grazing

permittees/lessees throughout the planning area. However, permittee/lessee operational costs

would increase considerably under this alternative because of the increase in the number of range

projects that would need to be constructed and maintained.

Wildlife management actions under Alternative C would be the least restrictive to livestock

grazing management. Alternative C increases the development of range improvements and gives

priority to livestock in terms of allocating forage. Like Alternative A, Alternative C allows new

fences in migration corridors, but considers habitat fragmentation. This would result in many

fewer adverse impacts to livestock grazing than Alternative B, which prohibits new fences and

removes some existing fences to reduce habitat fragmentation and to support big game migration.

In areas of parturition and crucial winter range, Alternative C manages vegetation primarily to

benefit livestock grazing. These impacts would be beneficial to grazing permittees/lessees because

livestock use would be spread over a larger area and at a higher level of use. Development of

range improvements facilitates livestock grazing in areas where grazing is not occurring because

of limited water availability. Alternative C is less restrictive than Alternative B and, in many

cases, less restrictive than Alternative A.

Alternative C management of special status species would result in adverse impacts similar to

Alternative A. Alternative B management is more favorable to special status species and less

favorable to livestock grazing because of the protections and special management requirements

for other resource values.

Alternative C management of wild horses is similar to Alternative A, except that it would be more

beneficial to livestock grazing because there would be greater displacement of wild horses with

the construction of more fencing and water developments, thus reducing competition from wild

horses. Alternative B wild horse management would be the least beneficial to livestock grazing

because it includes little to no fencing.

Alternative C management of cultural and paleontological resources is similar to Alternative

A. However, with the construction of additional range improvements, the number of conflicts

would be expected to increase to protect cultural resources (e.g., cattle tend to walk fence lines

and congregate near and around water wells and tanks, thereby increasing the risk of impacts to

cultural resources), thus reducing the number of potential range improvement projects installed.

Alternative C impacts to range improvements from the management of visual resources would be

similar to those under Alternative A. However, if additional fences and water developments are

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1081

proposed along the historic trails, a higher level of mitigation would be required compared to

Alternative A.

4.6.5.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Resource uses under Alternative C are projected to result in approximately 60,632 acres of surface

disturbance on BLM-administered land in the long term. This disturbance would result in the loss

of approximately 6,890 permitted AUMs over the life of the plan, the most of any alternative.

Appendix T (p. 1641) lists the projected surface disturbance for each alternative by the source

of the disturbance. The projected surface disturbance under Alternative C would result in the

greatest long-term and short-term adverse impacts to AUMs of any of the alternatives.

Alternative C closes approximately 5,472 acres of BLM-administered land to motorized vehicle

use, a decrease of approximately 8 percent compared to Alternative A. Alternative C would result

in the fewest adverse impacts to permittee/lessee access, but the most potential impact to rangeland

health and forage palatability of any alternative by increasing the likelihood of INNS spread.

Recreation management under Alternative C would be the same as Alternative A as it relates to

livestock grazing, except that recreation management under Alternative C does not guarantee

current use and emphasizes motorized recreation over nonmotorized. This would result in a trend

toward a more urban industrial setting and away from the primitive setting, which would adversely

impact livestock grazing. Alternative C would be less adverse than Alternative B management of

closing the Sweetwater River pasture of the Silver Creek Allotment, but the beneficial impact of

keeping these 1,074 permitted AUMs would be minor compared to the beneficial impacts of the

Alternative B trend away from an urban industrial setting toward a more primitive setting.

4.6.5.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C management does not include ACECs or recommend eligible and suitable WSRs

and does not close areas to livestock grazing in such areas as under other alternatives. Therefore,

Alternative C would not result in impacts to livestock grazing from management of these

areas. Impacts from the management of NHTs and other trails would be similar to those under

Alternative A. Special designations that protect vegetative resources or limit surface disturbance

would result in beneficial impacts to livestock grazing management in those areas.

4.6.5.3.5. Alternative D

4.6.5.3.5.1. Program Management

Under Alternative D, 2,317,368 surface acres are open for livestock grazing and 7,566 allotment

acres are closed to livestock grazing. Alternative D also includes the closure of 4,021 allotment

acres not being grazed. Areas such as campgrounds and exclosures not being grazed total 2,056

acres and comprise 239 AUMs. Alternative D would result in fewer AUMs than Alternative C,

particularly over time, as additional rangeland infrastructure would be limited to those that are

part of a grazing strategy. The development of comprehensive grazing strategies will focus

first on the stocking rates and season of use associated with grazing allotments prior to the

incorporation of range improvement projects into a grazing system. Additionally, the strategy will

be to incorporate rest and/or deferment into the grazing systems to make progress toward and

meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management
1082 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Management under Alternative D will be focused on managing livestock to achieve Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangelands and will look at other resource values. As allotments are

assessed and permits/leases renewed, available AUMs in Alternative D would be less than

Alternative C. This would be less beneficial to livestock grazing than Alternative C. Alternative D

focuses on development and installation of range improvement projects necessary to implement

comprehensive grazing strategies leading to improved rangeland health, or to enhance successful

grazing management strategies already in place. Beneficial impacts associated with the projected

improvement in rangeland health should exceed the impacts associated with the project

infrastructure installed. Projects would be avoided that expand livestock grazing on the landscape

without a clear link to a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy and consideration of other resources.

Alternative D allows range improvement projects only as part of a Comprehensive Grazing

Strategy to improve or enhance rangeland health; Alternative C focuses on management to

maximize livestock forage use instead of the protection or enhancement of other resource values.

However, while Alternative D would present some of the risks of adverse impacts resulting from

a failure of high-intensity grazing systems as Alternative C, it would present less risk because of

the requirement for a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy.

Like Alternative C, Alternative D uses both infrastructure and non-infrastructure improvements to

maintain, enhance, and achieve rangeland health. Range improvement projects under Alternative

D are designed to improve or enhance rangeland health. Beneficial impacts associated with

any range improvement project must exceed the adverse impacts of the project. Alternative D

avoids projects that would expand grazing across the landscape unless there is a clear link to

the Comprehensive Grazing Strategy and consideration of other resources. In certain ACECs

designated for the benefit of wildlife, range improvement projects are authorized only if they

enhance the important resource values of the ACEC.

Alternative D establishes requirements for residual forage that are the same as alternatives A

and C which when applied on an allotment-by-allotment basis, would likely lead to utilization

that would not exceed 50 percent, or moderate use, in areas livestock prefer. This utilization

would allow greater forage use by livestock than Alternative B, and would be a beneficial impact

for livestock, particularly in the short term. However, in areas where the Wyoming Standards

for Healthy Rangelands are not being met as a result of current livestock grazing practices,

Alternative D would likely result in utilization objectives of 30 to 35 percent in areas preferred

by livestock to make significant progress toward meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands. The placement of salt or mineral supplements is similar to alternatives A and C with

regard to distance from riparian-wetland areas, which would result in similar impacts as A and C

in this regard. However, Alternative D is more restrictive with regard to the greater sage-grouse

Core Area and NHTs where the impacts would be more adverse than under alternatives A and C.

Acquired lands are open to grazing on a case-by-case basis, thus benefiting permittees/lessees. It

is likely that AUMs under this alternative would be the second fewest of the alternatives.

Under Alternative D, forage reserves will be established as opportunities arise. Using forage

reserves increases the flexibility for livestock operators to graze other areas if they are not able to

use their allotment due to catastrophic events or vegetative treatments, or if reclamation activities

could not be accomplished following a disturbance. This would be a beneficial impact to livestock

grazing over Alternative C by increasing flexibility for the permittee/lessee.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1083

4.6.5.3.5.2. Resources

Alternative D requires avoidance of surface-disturbing activities on slopes greater than 25 percent.

This would result in impacts to livestock grazing similar to Alternative A, with fewer adverse

impacts than under Alternative B, and with slightly more than under Alternative C. Reduced slope

limitations provide more acreage for the installation of range improvement projects in those areas.

Compared to Alternative B, Alternative D would result in more acres of available livestock

forage, but would result in a greater risk of adverse impacts to soil (and therefore vegetation) in

both the short term and the long term. Adverse impacts to soil and vegetation would be indirect

adverse impacts to livestock grazing.

Forest and woodland management under Alternative D would result in less beneficial impact

to forage for livestock than Alternative C, which authorizes more active forest management.

Alternative D manages juniper and limber pine stands to enhance all uses. This would result in a

beneficial impact to livestock grazing, but would be less beneficial than Alternative C. Activities

that control juniper encroachment or stimulate herbaceous growth in the forest and woodland

understory would result in a beneficial impact to grazing from increased forage production. As

under all alternatives, the lack of local market demand for forest products limits BLM ability to

successfully manage forest products.

Under this alternative, with comprehensive grazing strategies the intensity and frequency of

wildfires would be similar to that described under Alternative B due to the presence of more fine

fuels caused by shorter use periods and longer rest periods that may be implemented in the

comprehensive management strategies. However, in some areas the intensity and frequency

of wildfires could be about the same as under alternatives A and C, with the same levels of

forage utilization by livestock. However, unlike alternatives A and C, over the long term, light

to moderate grazing pressure combined with comprehensive grazing strategies would prevent a

slow change to a less desirable mix of plant species. If successful, the plant mix would remain

desirable for livestock grazing, as it would under Alternative B.

Alternative D includes fewer acres of vegetation treatments to improve vegetation conditions and

increase forage production than Alternative B. Alternative D allocates more funds for fences,

water developments, and other infrastructure, although less than in Alternative C. Alternative D

relies on grazing management to produce usable forage for livestock, thereby benefiting livestock

grazing management where successful, although less so than Alternative C. Alternative D may

result in more opportunities for biological diversity but would result in fewer beneficial impacts to

livestock grazing than Alternative C, which manages for forage production.

Salt or mineral supplements would be placed in historically unused areas to maximize livestock

forage use, if part of the comprehensive management strategy. Adverse impacts to upland

vegetation that could result from this placement (and other strategies to disperse cattle from

riparian-wetlands) could be acceptable under Alternative D if the net beneficial impacts to

the riparian-wetland areas outweighed adverse impacts to upland vegetation from livestock

grazing use in these areas. Increasing livestock use on historically unused areas would also

create user conflicts with wildlife species such as greater sage-grouse, pronghorn, and other

big game species, but these potential adverse impacts would be considered in evaluating the

Comprehensive Grazing Strategy.

Like Alternative B, Alternative D could require livestock flushing, which would result in a

short-term adverse impact to grazing, but have a potential long-term benefit by reducing the

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management
1084 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

spread of INNS. This action, if implemented, would adversely impact permittees/lessees with

INNS problems on their private lands by increasing operating costs and allowing less flexibility

to move herds without the need to quarantine or drylot them. This could result in long-term

beneficial impacts by increasing the potential for establishment and spread of INNS, which

reduces forage and burdens permittees who maintain INNS-free forage on their private lands.

Alternative D riparian-wetland resources management utilizes all management tools, including

rangeland improvements, to make progress toward PFC, but only as part of a comprehensive

management strategy. These management tools benefit livestock grazing because more projects

would be made available to improve livestock distribution away from riparian-wetland systems

and likely would result in the most rapid improvement of riparian-areas. In some cases, this

would provide for additional forage in areas that might have never or only seldom been grazed by

livestock to become available. This additional forage would be less than that under Alternative

C, because the additional acres made available must have a clear link to the grazing strategy

and consider adverse impacts to other resources. Unlike Alternative C, Alternative D prevents

the development of new range improvement projects without an associated Comprehensive

Grazing Strategy, thereby reducing expansion of grazing across rangelands without a clear link to

improving rangeland health and consideration of other resources. Over the planning period, the

BLM anticipates that the construction of rangeland improvement projects under Alternative D

would result in approximately 42 acres of disturbance each year, including new fence construction

and water projects. Due to the constraints on range improvement projects under Alternative

D, such as buffering around greater sage-grouse leks, the disturbance associated with range

improvement projects, particularly fences, are anticipated to increase as a result of the need to

avoid resource conflicts. New fence construction would beneficially impact livestock grazing

operators by creating more pastures through which to rotate their livestock. New water projects,

in conjunction with additional fencing, would increase flexibility for livestock grazing permittees

throughout the planning area and would encourage an overall strategy to achieve Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangelands. However, permittee/lessee operational costs would increase

considerably under this alternative due to the increased number of range projects that would need

to be constructed and maintained.

Wildlife management actions under Alternative D would result in the next most adverse impacts

to livestock grazing after Alternative B, but not much more than Alternative A or Alternative

C. Alternative D includes the continued development of range improvements, but focuses them

as tools to implement the Comprehensive Grazing Strategy in consideration of adverse impacts

to wildlife and other resources. Moreover, the adverse impacts cannot outweigh the beneficial

impacts of the projects. Although Alternative D does not give priority to livestock in terms of use

of forage as does Alternative C, under Alternative D this would happen by default because of the

utilization levels. However, Alternative D will consider wildlife and special status species such as

greater sage-grouse when considering forage use. This consideration will be incorporated into the

comprehensive grazing strategies through stocking rate evaluations that allow for appropriate

residual forage to meet the needs of big game and hiding cover for greater sage-grouse. In many

cases, this could result in a reduction in stocking rate to meet resource objectives associated

with wildlife.

Wildlife management under Alternative D would result in slightly more adverse impacts to

livestock grazing than under alternatives A and C because fencing would not be used in identified

big game migration corridors. However, when critical to the success of a Comprehensive Grazing

Strategy and compatible with a migration corridor, fencing would be considered. Similarly,

Alternative D would result in slightly more adverse impacts than Alternative A or Alternative C

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1085

because it authorizes water developments beneficial to livestock grazing in areas of parturition

and crucial winter range only if the project is critical to the success of a Comprehensive

Grazing Strategy. To reach a Finding of No Significant Impact, impacts from fencing and water

development under alternatives A, C, and D must be mitigated. Therefore, the increased adverse

impacts under Alternative D over alternatives A and C would be from the requirement that range

improvement projects in migration corridors, crucial winter range, and parturition areas be part

of a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy. All three alternatives would result in substantially fewer

adverse impacts than the Alternative B prohibition of range improvement projects. Allowing

range improvement projects in big game areas would be beneficial to grazing permittees/lessees

because livestock grazing use would be spread over a larger area than before and at a higher level

of use. The development of range improvements would facilitate livestock grazing in areas where

grazing is not occurring because of limited water availability.

Management of special status species under Alternative D would result in impacts similar

to Alternative A, although slightly more restrictive, which would result in substantially fewer

adverse impacts to livestock grazing than Alternative B. Alternative D is more favorable to

special status species and less favorable to livestock grazing, but would result in fewer adverse

impacts than Alternative B because Alternative D adopts the Core Area approach to management

for the benefit of greater sage-grouse. As a result, only the leks in the Core Area are buffered

from surface disturbance by 0.6 mile, which would allow range improvement projects on an

additional 8,801 acres. This would result in fewer adverse impacts to livestock grazing than

Alternative B, but more than Alternative A or Alternative C. Although seasonal limitations

on surface-disturbing or disruptive activities are applied over a greater area under Alternative

D than under alternatives A and C, and less than Alternative B, this would not result in adverse

impacts to livestock grazing, although it would reduce the time available for implementing range

improvement projects. Potential range improvements might need to be modified to avoid and

buffer greater sage-grouse habitat to mitigate impacts of increased livestock use in the area.

Management of wild horses under Alternative D is more favorable than Alternative C.

Construction of fencing and water developments limited to those needed for a Comprehensive

Grazing Strategy, wild horses would be displaced and there would be less competition from wild

horses than under Alternative A or Alternative C. Alternative B wild horse management would be

the least beneficial to livestock grazing because there would be no fencing allowed that would

adversely impact wild horses. Any limitations on water development outside the HMAs designed

to keep wild horses in the HMA would adversely impact livestock grazing.

Management of cultural and paleontological resources under Alternative D would result in

impacts similar to Alternative A, and fewer adverse impacts than Alternative C. Alternative D

would create conflicts because a large number of range improvement projects would be built and

use would increase (e.g., cattle tend to walk fence lines and congregate near and around water

wells and tanks, thereby increasing the risk of impacts to cultural resources). Under Alternative

D, these adverse impacts would be allowed if offset by the beneficial impacts of the projects to the

Comprehensive Grazing Strategy.

There would be few adverse impacts to livestock grazing from management of visual resources

under Alternative D, because VRM is based on meeting objectives rather than any artificial

geographic scale. Adverse impacts to visual resources could be authorized under Alternative D if

the impacts were outweighed by beneficial impacts from a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management
1086 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.6.5.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Resource uses under Alternative D are projected to result in approximately 11,453 acres of surface

disturbance on BLM-administered land in the long term. This disturbance would result in the loss

of approximately 1,301 permitted AUMs over the life of the plan. Appendix T (p. 1641) lists the

projected surface disturbance for each alternative by the source of the disturbance.

Alternative D closes approximately 26,357 acres of BLM-administered land to motorized vehicle

use, a decrease of approximately 65 percent compared to Alternative B, but 329 percent more

than Alternative A. Alternative C closes 5,472 acres to motorized vehicle use. Closing areas

to motorized vehicle use would result in a beneficial impact to livestock grazing; it would

improve rangeland health and forage palatability by decreasing the likelihood of INNS spread.

Approximately 9 percent of the land closed to motorized travel under Alternative D is also closed

to livestock grazing.

Impacts to livestock grazing from recreation management under Alternative D would be the same

as under Alternative B, except that Alternative D opens the Sweetwater River Pasture of the Silver

Creek Allotment to grazing. This would beneficially impact livestock grazing by maintaining

1,074 permitted AUMs. On a planning area basis, this would be a minor adverse impact. Both

alternatives B and D trend less away from the primitive setting toward a more urban setting, and

therefore would result in more beneficial impacts to livestock grazing than Alternative C.

4.6.5.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative D would result in fewer adverse impacts to livestock grazing from special designation

management than Alternative B, but more than Alternative C. Alternative D designates 243,838

acres as ACECs. Alternative D closes 7,566 acres to livestock grazing (these are the same

closures discussed above, not duplicative), which would result in, on a planning area-wide basis,

inconsequentially more adverse impacts to livestock grazing than alternatives A and C. For

wildlife ACECs, such as Lander Slope and Red Canyon, Alternative D authorizes new range

improvement projects if the purpose is to enhance the values in the ACEC. These projects also

could result in beneficial impacts to livestock grazing, but would require site-specific analysis

to determine impacts. In other ACECs, range improvement projects would be authorized on a

case-by-case basis, as under Alternative A. In this regard, Alternative D would result in more

adverse impacts than Alternative C, which does not manage any areas for ACEC values and

would allow range improvement projects regardless of benefits to other resource values.

Alternative D would result in fewer adverse impacts to livestock grazing than Alternative B

because range improvement projects within 1⁄2 mile of RHT&EHs are authorized if they meet

VRM objectives and are not otherwise limited. This management would result in the same minor

adverse impacts to livestock grazing as alternatives A and C (which, although Alternative C,

like alternatives A and D, does not designate the RHT&EH as ACECs, must still meet NHPA

requirements).

Alternative D management of Congressionally Designated Trails would result in substantially

more adverse impacts to livestock grazing than Alternative C. Alternative D manages a much

larger area around trails with VRM objectives, which could result in adverse impacts to livestock

grazing through the location of range improvement projects and the closing of trail corridors to

ROWs (except in identified locations). However, these adverse impacts would be somewhat

offset by beneficial impacts to grazing through limitations on surface disturbance in trail corridors

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1087

to meet VRM objectives. Management actions that limit surface disturbance would indirectly

benefit livestock grazing by improving vegetation and preventing the spread of INNS.

Alternative D would also adversely impact the construction of range improvements along eligible

and recommended suitable WSRs, which would be considered on a case-by-case basis, depending

on whether they would enhance the outstanding values of the waterways. Therefore, Alternative

D would result in impacts to livestock grazing from WSR-related management similar to

alternatives A and B.

4.6.6. Recreation

The following impact definitions (characterizations) apply to this analysis:

● Impacts to the recreation setting of important recreation areas that result from resource and

resource use management actions constitutes a direct adverse impact to recreation.

● Closing areas to a specific recreation activity has a direct adverse impact on the specific

activity that is precluded.

● Closing areas to motorized vehicles and precluding energy development will cause areas to

trend toward a primitive recreation setting. In general, settings that trend toward primitive

have a beneficial impact to nonmotorized recreation and adverse impact to motorized

recreation. Primitive settings typically have a high degree of naturalness, with few human

disturbances on the landscape. The acres of recreation setting trending toward primitive was

calculated based upon the amount of area precluded from energy development and closed

to motorized vehicle use.

● Areas precluded from energy development but not closed to motorized vehicles will

demonstrate a recreation setting that is unchanged or maintained at existing condition. These

areas would continue to benefit the diversity of recreation opportunities that currently exist

across the planning area. The acres of recreation setting maintained at existing conditions is

equal to the area precluded from energy development.

● Areas with high and moderate potential for energy and mineral resources (and not precluded

from development) would experience increased development, causing the recreation setting

in the area to trend toward urban/industrial. This trend would adversely impact most

recreationists, with the exception of those who specifically enjoy motorized recreation in a

modified environment. The acres of recreation setting trending toward urban/industrial was

calculated based on an overlay of those areas not precluded from development with high and

moderate potential for the various energy resource.

● Managing areas as SRMAs can have a direct beneficial impact to: individuals, communities,

economies, and/or the environment. These beneficial impacts are assigned within the

management objectives of SRMAs.

● Management actions that benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat would benefit recreation. In

addition, actions that restrict habitat losses and adverse changes in recreation setting in

WGFD hunt units managed for special criteria would benefit recreation. The acres of area

enhanced for wildlife dependent recreation is calculated based upon an additive of the areas

precluded from development and the acres of area where wildlife dependent recreation is

specifically targeted within a recreation management objective. The percent of WGFD special

hunt units maintained to facilitate trophy/high quality hunting opportunities was calculated by

dividing the amount of special hunt units precluded from energy development by the total

area of special hunt units.

● Management actions to support resources that limits energy development would limit changes

to the area, thus indirectly benefitting recreation settings.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation
1088 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

This section focuses on analyzing impacts to recreation management outside Congressionally

Designated Trails. See the Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and Visual Resources

section for impacts to recreationists and the recreational setting along Congressionally Designated

Trails.

4.6.6.1. Summary of Impacts

Table 4.32, “Impacts to Recreation Setting by Alternative” (p. 1088) summarizes impacts

to the recreation environment (setting) across alternatives. Recreation management under the

alternatives reflects the diversity of visitor demand in the planning area. Recreation management

also reflects the fact that accommodating specific visitor demand is contingent on restrictions

in other BLM management programs (e.g., energy development). Therefore, the range

of management actions in the recreation program heavily influences the level of impact to

recreationists and the recreation setting under each alternative. For these reasons, Table 4.32,

“Impacts to Recreation Setting by Alternative” (p. 1088) summarizes both the impacts of program

management and impacts to the overall recreation setting.

Table 4.32. Impacts to Recreation Setting by Alternative

Anticipated Recreation Setting Trend Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres of recreation setting trending toward

primitive

5,923 71,761 5,472 26,357

Acres of recreation setting maintained at

existing conditions

146,717 1,739,972 16,330 714,824

Acres of recreation setting trending toward

urban/industrialized at an increased scale

and pace

2,241,570 582,477 2,372,408 1,653,961

Source: BLM 2012a

Visitors also express very diverse preferences for recreation activities. The general recreation

groupings in this analysis are consumptive, non-consumptive, motorized, and nonmotorized.

Some management actions under alternatives could restrict opportunities to participate in these

recreational activities. Closures to activities adversely impact recreationists who participate

in those activities. However, closures to one activity could benefit other recreationists when

the area is closed to a conflicting activity. Table 4.33, “Acreage Available to Consumptive,

Non-Consumptive, Motorized, and Nonmotorized Recreation Activities” (p. 1089) displays the

acreage in the planning area open or closed to consumptive, non-consumptive, motorized, and

nonmotorized recreation activities.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1089

Table 4.33. Acreage Available to Consumptive, Non-Consumptive, Motorized, and

Nonmotorized Recreation Activities

Alternative A

(acres)

Alternative B

(acres)

Alternative C

(acres)

Alternative D

Activities (acres)

Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed

Consumptive Entire

planning

area

0

Entire

planning

area

0

Entire

planning

area

0

Entire

planning

area

0

Non-consumptive Entire

planning

area

0

Entire

planning

area

0

Entire

planning

area

0

Entire

planning

area

0

Motorized 2,388,2

87

5,923

2,322,4

49

71,761

2,388,7

38

5,472

2,367,8

53

26,357

Nonmotorized

Entire

planning

area

0

Entire

planning

area

63,379

(closed

to mechanized

only)

Entire

planning

area

0

Entire

planning

area

0

Source: BLM 2012a

Accommodating visitor demand for beneficial outcomes is limited and affected by the actions or

restrictions in other BLM management programs. For example, accommodating visitor demand

for specific recreation benefits would be almost impossible in an area targeted for heavy energy

development. Conversely, management objectives for SRMAs specifically target beneficial

outcomes resulting from recreation use. Table 4.34, “Recreation-Specific Beneficial Outcomes by

Alternative” (p. 1089) lists the acres of recreation-specific beneficial outcomes and the recreation

sectors that would benefit.

Table 4.34. Recreation-Specific Beneficial Outcomes by Alternative

Acres by Alternative Managed for

Recreation Area Beneficial Outcomes

(Priority Activities)

Beneficial Outcomes to:

Alternative AAlternative BAlternative CAlternative D

Johnny Behind the Rocks

(Horseback Riding, Mountain

Biking, Hiking, Trail Running,

Wildlife Viewing)

Local Individuals, Lander

Community, and the

Environment

0 5,594 0 4,828

Sinks Canyon Climbing Area

(Climbing, Hiking)

Local Individuals, Lander

Community, and the

Environment

0 139 0 Same as

Alternative B

Bus @ Baldwin Creek

(Horseback Riding, Trail Running,

Mountain Biking, Hiking)

Local Individuals, Lander

Community, and the

Environment

0 1,159 0 Same as

Alternative B

Dubois Mill-Site

(Hiking, Walking, Running,

Wildlife Viewing, Horseback

Riding, (Motorized Trail Riding

Alternative C Only)

Individuals, Dubois

Community, (Environment

Alternative B Only)

0 608 608 Same as

Alternative B

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation
1090 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Acres by Alternative Managed for

Recreation Area Beneficial Outcomes

(Priority Activities)

Beneficial Outcomes to:

Alternative AAlternative BAlternative CAlternative D

Sweetwater Canyon

(Hiking, Backpacking, Horseback

Riding, Hunting, Fishing,

Wildlife Viewing)

Individuals, Environments,

and Regional Economics

0 9,136 0 Same as

Alternative B

Sweetwater Rocks

(Climbing, Hiking, Backpacking,

Horseback Riding, Hunting,

Wildlife Viewing)

Individuals, Environments,

and Regional Economics

0 49,727 0 41,806

Source: BLM 2012a

During workshops, cooperators identified the need to accommodate hunting heritage and conserve

wildlife. To that end, cooperators identified objectives, several of which also provide indicators

to analyze alternatives. Acres where wildlife-dependent recreation is enhanced and acres where

the BLM can facilitate trophy/high-quality hunting opportunities in WGFD hunt units managed

under special management criteria not only reflects direct impacts but also recognizes the causal

link between wildlife, associated habitat, and recreation. Table 4.35, “Wildlife-Dependent

Recreation Acreage by Alternative” (p. 1090) lists the acres of area where management actions

would enhance wildlife-dependent recreation, and the percent of WGFD special hunt units where

management actions would limit habitat losses and changes to the recreation setting.

Table 4.35. Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Acreage by Alternative

Wildlife Dependent Recreation Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres of area enhanced for

wildlife dependent recreation

146,717 1,890,599 16,330 1,564,484

Percent of Wyoming Game and

Fish Department special hunt

units maintained to facilitate

trophy/high quality hunting

opportunities

Antelope: 11%

Mule Deer: 4%

Antelope: 94%

Mule Deer: 86%

Antelope: 8%

Mule Deer: 4%

Antelope: 55%

Mule Deer: 32%

Source: BLM 2012a

4.6.6.2. Methods and Assumptions

This analysis focuses on the indicators (recreation setting, activities, beneficial outcomes, and

wildlife-dependent recreation) described above. In addition, the analysis compares impacts to

the following important (as identified by visitor demand) recreation areas under the alternatives:

Agate Flats, Beaver Creek Nordic Ski Area, Muskrat Basin, Dubois Mill Site, Johnny Behind the

Rocks, Sinks Canyon, the Bus @ Baldwin Creek, Sweetwater Canyon, Sweetwater Rocks, Castle

Gardens, Copper Mountain WSA, Dubois Badlands WSA, Coalmine/Government Draw, Green

Mountain, Lander Slope/Red Canyon, and Whiskey Mountain/Eastfork.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Visitors have specific preferences for recreation settings. The recreation setting is an integral

supply component of the recreation environment because settings “not only affect the

experiences and benefits,” but also help to “define what type of activities might occur in

an area” (Pierskalla et al. 2004).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1091

● Beneficial outcomes realized by recreationists and communities will occur across the planning

area as specified in the outcome objectives for each alternative. While outcomes could be

realized anywhere in the planning area, specifically targeted outcomes will be realized at a

much higher rate because the BLM and its partners will actively develop management actions

and provide a recreation setting that facilitates these outcomes (Driver 2008). In addition,

allowable use decisions will sustain and enhance recreation outcomes throughout the planning

period (Hopkins 2008).

● All areas (SRMAs and ERMAs) will be managed to meet statutory requirements to ensure

resource protection, human health and safety, reduce conflicts, and achieve other program

planning objectives.

● Limiting the amount of group use, limiting destructive activities, influencing behaviors,

concentrating use, utilizing or creating hardened sites, and shielding areas from use reduces

environmental impacts from recreation (Cole 1993). These options will be considered the

primary management actions available to alleviate impacts to resources from recreation.

● Sanderson et al. (Sanderson et al. 1986) found that, as livestock management intensities

(including level of fencing or other range improvements) increased, visitor demand or

enticement for an area decreased.

● Sanderson, et al. (Sanderson et al. 1986) found that customer or visitor preference for a

landscape decreased as grazing intensity increased.

● Visitor experience-inhibiting encounters with livestock include cows near camps, manure on

trails, and cows or impacts near water sources (Wallace et al. 1996).

● The most important characteristics for determining the impacts to the environment from

recreation are (1) the amount of use, (2) the type of recreation activity, (3) the behavior of

recreationists, (4) the spatial distribution of use, and (5) the temporal distribution of use

(Cole 1993).

● Allowable use decisions that protect wildlife habitat would also benefit wildlife-dependent

recreation. In addition, areas specifically identified for management to enhance

wildlife-dependent recreation would benefit this management.

4.6.6.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.6.6.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Recreation management decisions will limit some recreation activities. Specifically, the 14-day

campsite occupancy limit would impact recreationists who desire to camp for longer periods.

This demand is especially high during the fall hunting season that runs approximately 60 to 80

days, depending on the species pursued and weapon choice. This impact would occur across the

planning area and during any season recreationists desire to camp for more than 14 days.

Recreation management will increase access and provide additional hunting opportunities for

handicapped individuals. These decisions would enhance wildlife-dependent recreation for

all participants.

Several resource management actions common to all alternatives would impact recreation

settings and activities. First, standard wildlife and special status species stipulations (such

as seasonal limitations on surface-disturbing and surface-disruptive activities) would limit

recreation activities and/or recreation permit holders. These impacts would be seasonal and

not result in permanent closures. Second, activities to gather wild horses would continue to

temporarily introduce undesirable amounts of noise and activity to the recreation setting. Wild

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation
1092 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

horse roundup activities also displace wildlife; therefore, these impacts would especially affect

wildlife-dependent recreation if roundup activities are performed during fall hunting seasons.

Finally, standard cultural resources stipulations (resource protection actions) would continue

to limit new recreation developments and visitor services. These stipulations rarely preclude

projects, but could result in project relocation or modification. Impacts to recreation settings

and activities from management under other resource programs would be seasonal and occur

randomly, locally, and in relatively small portions of the planning area.

Resource use management actions common to all alternatives would impact recreation settings and

activities. Areas identified as having high and moderate potential for oil and gas would continue

to demonstrate trends toward urban/industrial recreation settings. In addition, development of

these areas would continue to reduce opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation because

habitats and recreation settings would be altered. Several travel management decisions common

to all alternatives would restrict the use of motorized and over-snow vehicles. In particular,

cross-country motorized vehicle use would be limited to 300 feet to retrieve harvested big game

animals. This and other limitations would adversely impact motorized vehicle users, but would

beneficially impact nonmotorized recreationists. Continuing to authorize the current amounts,

kinds, and season of livestock grazing use would continue to impact recreationists and important

recreation areas. Visitor encounters with livestock such as cows near camps, manure on trails, and

cows or impacts near water sources would affect visitor experiences (Wallace et al. 1996). In

addition, areas with high-intensity grazing or that trend toward increasing grazing intensity would

experience a decrease in visitor preference (Sanderson et al. 1986). Impacts to recreation from

resource use programs would occur year-round and across the planning area. The intensity of

impacts from oil and gas development and livestock grazing would depend on the intensity of

use resulting from these programs.

Several resource management actions common to all alternatives would enhance recreation

activities, recreation settings, and wildlife dependent recreation. Several management actions

related to wildlife and special status species would promote healthy wildlife populations and

habitats, and mitigate impacts to wildlife from authorized activities. In addition, the biological

resources management actions include: reintroduction of native species on a case-by-case basis.

These actions would enhance wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities by simply promoting

more wildlife. Ensuring VRM Class I and II objectives are met through allowable use decisions

would beneficially impact recreationists who enjoy scenic environments. These beneficial impacts

would occur across the planning area, but primarily in identified winter ranges protected under

seasonal stipulations, when reintroduction of native species (such as bighorn sheep) actually

occurs, and/or in areas identified as Class I and II.

Continued management of WSAs under BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study

Areas would enhance primitive and nonmotorized recreation opportunities. These areas also

would enhance nonmotorized wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities by protecting wildlife

and habitats.

4.6.6.3.2. Alternative A

4.6.6.3.2.1. Program Management

Visitor services under Alternative A will be a function of actions to protect resources, mitigate

use and user conflicts, and protect human health and safety. That is, visitor services under this

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1093

alternative will focus on accommodating the priorities of other BLM programs rather than

accommodating visitor demand. This would adversely impact recreationists because it is not

responsive to visitor demands for recreation settings, activities, and/or outcomes.

Program management under Alternative A protects several existing developed recreation sites,

but does not include any allowable use decisions to protect important recreation areas. Protections

under this alternative would maintain existing investments, but does not include decisions that

would allow for future development of new recreation sites or maintenance and enhancement

of important recreation areas. Program management under this alternative would not sustain or

enhance the recreation settings of important recreation areas to supply specific visitor demand for

recreational opportunities (activities and outcomes).

4.6.6.3.2.2. Resources

Alternative A closes 5,923 acres to motorized vehicles year-round to protect resources. The

year-round closures would result in 5,923 acres trending toward primitive. This trend would

reduce opportunities for motorized recreation activities and enhance nonmotorized activities.

In addition, without allowable use decisions to sustain or enhance recreation opportunities,

stipulations on resources (e.g., wildlife and cultural resources) could conflict with recreation

settings and opportunities in important recreation areas. This conflict would be random and local;

therefore, it is not possible to predict the scale and locations of the impacts.

Development associated with resource uses increases road densities, decreases naturalness,

and increases contacts with other humans (setting trending toward urban/industrial). Overall,

allowable use decisions to protect resources (e.g., wildlife) would limit development associated

with resource uses. Therefore, most allowable use decisions associated with resources would

result in the maintenance of recreation settings, a beneficial impact to recreation management.

The maintenance of existing recreation settings as a result of allowable use decisions to protect

resources would facilitate a diversity of recreation opportunities. In addition, allowable use

decisions to protect resources would reduce the potential for setting change in important

recreation areas, and resource use decisions to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat would enhance

and maintain opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. As a result of allowable use

decisions associated with wildlife, cultural resources, and visual resources, 146,717 acres of

recreation setting across the planning area would be maintained. Development in the following

important recreation areas is precluded or restricted under Alternative A: Castle Gardens,

Coalmine/Government Draw, Dubois Badlands WSA, Dubois Mill Site, Sinks Canyon Climbing

Area, the Bus @ Baldwin Creek, and Whiskey Mountain/Eastfork. Finally, allowable use

decisions associated with resources would maintain or enhance wildlife-dependent recreation

on 146,717 acres, and 7 percent of WGFD special hunt units would be maintained/enhanced to

facilitate trophy/high-quality hunting opportunities.

4.6.6.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Because of authorized uses associated with mineral and energy resources, Alternative A would

result in 2,241,570 acres of recreation setting trending toward urban/industrial. This would

adversely impact recreationists seeking to recreate in areas with low road density, high degree of

naturalness, and few people. Conversely, these impacts would benefit recreationists who enjoy

recreating in a motorized/high road density environment with numerous human disturbances

and other users.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation
1094 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Under Alternative A, authorized uses associated with mineral and energy resources would impact

several important recreation areas in the planning area (see Table 4.36, “Energy-Related Impacts

to Recreation Areas under Alternative A” (p. 1094)).

Table 4.36. Energy-Related Impacts to Recreation Areas under Alternative A

Important

Recreation Area

Impacts

Agate Flats Wildcat exploration and small-scale development in support of oil and gas extraction will

continue primarily in the western (near Beaver Rim/Tin Cup Mountain) portion of the area.

Wind-energy development would occur throughout the landscape. Several ROWs would

continue to show disturbance across the landscape. These activities would result in the Agate

Flats area demonstrating an overall trend toward urban/industrial setting. In addition, these

activities would impact wildlife-dependent recreation and the WGFD Antelope hunt areas in the

area.

Copper Mountain

WSA

Wind-energy development outside the WSA would dominate the view of recreationists

participating in activities in the WSA. Such development would be in view from numerous

locations in the WSA.

Green Mountain Alternative A impacts to Green Mountain would occur outside the existing ACEC designated to

protect elk parturition and winter ranges. Wildcat exploration and small-scale development in

support of oil and gas extraction would continue in the northern and southern portions of this area.

Wind-energy development would occur across the entire area. Extensive uranium development

also could occur across most of the area. These activities would result in the Green Mountain

area demonstrating a major trend in setting change toward urban/industrial. These actions also

would reduce wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, reduce wildlife habitats, and alter

recreation settings in several WGFD Antelope hunt areas managed under special criteria.

Johnny Behind

The Rocks

Wildcat exploration and small-scale development in support of oil and gas extraction would

continue throughout the area. Alternative A management of this important recreation area

focuses on the sole purpose of extracting bentonite. Bentonite exploration requires complete

stripping of vegetation and removal of multiple feet of soil on slopes and ridge tops in the area.

A bentonite mine in the Johnny Behind The Rocks area would preclude recreation in the area.

Lander Slope/Red

Canyon

Alternative A management of the Lander Slope focuses on the sole purpose of extracting

phosphate. Phosphate exploration requires complete stripping of vegetation and removal of

multiple feet of soil on slopes and ridge tops in the area. A phosphate mine on the Lander

Slope would preclude recreation in the area.

Muskrat Basin Wildcat exploration and small-scale development in support of oil and gas extraction would

continue throughout the area. Wind-energy development would occur on top of Beaver Rim

and several prominent ridges (such as Signor Ridge). In addition, phosphate mining could

occur in an isolated portion of this area. These activities would result in the Muskrat Basin

area demonstrating a trend toward urban/industrial setting. These actions also would reduce

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, reduce wildlife habitats, and alter recreation settings

in several WGFD Antelope hunt areas and a mule deer hunt area managed under special criteria.

Sweetwater

Canyon

Wind-energy development outside the WSA would dominate the view of recreationists

participating in activities in the WSA. Such development would be in view from numerous

locations in the WSA.

Sweetwater

Rocks

Wind-energy development and granite mining outside the WSA would dominate the view of

recreationists participating in activities in the WSA. Such development would be in view from

numerous locations in the WSA.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ROW right-of-way

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WSA Wilderness Study Area

Most of the planning area is open to ROW authorizations under this alternative. Impacts from

these actions would be random and differ in scale. Locating ROWs in existing disturbed

areas would not alter the recreation setting. New disturbances associated with ROWs under

this alternative would result in recreation settings trending toward urban/industrial. Important

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1095

recreation settings precluded from most ROW development include Sweetwater Rocks, Lander

Slope/Red Canyon, and the Dubois Millsite.

Alternative A allows for continued development of range projects and existing levels of livestock

grazing intensities, which in some areas is heavy (greater than 60 percent). Areas with new range

projects would see a decrease in visitor preference, visitors would continue to show reduced

preference toward areas with existing range improvements, and areas demonstrating high levels

of utilization would not be favored by recreationists (Sanderson et al. 1986). Visitor encounters

with livestock such as cows near camps, manure on trails, and cows or impacts near water sources

(Wallace et al. 1996) would continue across the planning area and in all important recreation areas

including Sweetwater Canyon. This would inhibit visitor experiences.

4.6.6.3.2.4. Special Designations

Because ACEC designations are a function of protecting relevant and important resources,

impacts to recreation from the designation of ACECs are captured above. Secondary impacts

to recreation from management of these special designations (e.g., trail viewshed protections

that also limit development in important recreation areas) is also described above. See the

Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and Visual Resources section for impacts to

recreation from the management of Congressionally Designated Trails and the Wild and Scenic

Rivers section for impacts to recreation from the management of WSRs.

4.6.6.3.3. Alternative B

4.6.6.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B closes 7,500 acres to motorized activities to meet specific customer demand in the

Johnny Behind the Rocks, the Bus @ Baldwin Creek, and the Dubois Mill Site areas. In addition,

this alternative closes 18,251 acres in important wildlife-dependent recreation areas (Green

Mountain and Red Canyon) to ensure a diversity of wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities.

The year-round closures would result in 15,751 acres trending toward primitive setting as a direct

result of actions to enhance nonmotorized recreation. This trend would reduce opportunities for

motorized recreation activities and enhance opportunities nonmotorized activities.

Program management under this alternative is responsive to customer demand. Compared

to Alternative A, Alternative B increases visitor services in all important recreation areas and

provides allowable use decisions that ensure the future recreational enjoyment of these areas.

Alternative B manages seven important recreation areas (totaling 307,183 acres) as SRMAs.

In SRMAs, the recreation setting is managed to meet visitor demand for specific activities,

experiences, and benefits. Under Alternative B, allowable uses (limits on other BLM programs)

and management actions are specifically developed to sustain and/or enhance the entire recreation

setting. The following important recreation areas will be in SRMAs to meet specific visitor

demand: Dubois Mill Site, Johnny Behind the Rocks, Sinks Canyon, Sweetwater Canyon, and

the Sweetwater Rocks.

Alternative B also manages several important recreation areas (not in SRMAs) in a manner that

meets a less specific/more diverse visitor demand in concert with wildlife program objectives.

Alternative B manages these areas as distinct ERMAs. Distinct ERMAs are areas where

management focuses on providing a diversity of recreation opportunities, within the confines

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation
1096 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

of both recreation and non-recreation program objectives. In distinct ERMAs, allowable uses

and management actions address recreation and tourism issues, activities, and conflicts and/or

single important attributes (such as remoteness) of the area. Compared to Alternative A, the

Alternative B focus on harmonizing visitor services, diversifying recreation opportunities, and

other program priorities constitutes an increased level of visitor services. Alternative B manages

the remainder of important recreation areas as distinct ERMAs, including Agate Flats, Beaver

Creek Nordic Ski Area, Castle Gardens, Coalmine/Government Draw, Copper Mountain WSA,

and Dubois Badlands WSA,

Program management in Alternative B would protect more existing developed recreation

sites than Alternative A. In addition, the alternative would protect future developed sites and

investments. Alternative B would apply allowable use decisions to protect more important

recreation areas than Alternative A.

Program management under Alternative B also identifies several actions to enhance

wildlife-dependent recreation, including:

1. Specifically identifying the Agate Flats, Green Mountain, Lander Slope/Red Canyon, and

Muskrat Basin distinct ERMAs for wildlife-dependent recreation,

2. Increasing visitor services in these distinct ERMAs to facilitate wildlife-dependent

recreation,

3. Identifying seasonal restrictions in the Agate Flats and Muskrat Basin areas so as not to

authorize surface-disturbing activities during the hunting season of several WGFD hunt

areas managed under special criteria,

4. Managing the Dubois Mill Site, Johnny Behind the Rocks, Sweetwater Canyon, and

Sweetwater Rocks SRMAs to enhance specific recreation opportunities, including

wildlife-dependent recreation, and

5. Applying allowable use decisions in the above SRMAs to sustain/enhance the recreation

setting to provide specific recreation opportunities associated with wildlife-dependent

recreation.

4.6.6.3.3.2. Resources

Alternative B closes 71,761 acres to motorized vehicles year-round to protect resources. The

year-round closures would result in 71,761 acres trending toward primitive setting. This trend

would reduce opportunities for motorized recreation activities and enhance nonmotorized

activities. Stipulations for resources (e.g., wildlife and cultural resources) could conflict with

recreation settings and opportunities in important recreation areas. Conflict would be local and

random, and occur at a lower rate than Alternative A.

Allowable use decisions to protect resources (e.g., wildlife) would limit development associated

with resource uses, such as increased road densities, decreased naturalness, and increased contacts

with other humans (settings trending toward urban/industrial). Therefore, most allowable use

decisions associated with resources would result in the maintenance of recreation settings.

The maintenance of existing recreation settings as a result of allowable use decisions to protect

resources would continue to facilitate a diversity of recreation opportunities. In addition,

allowable use decisions to protect resources would reduce the potential for setting changes in

important recreation areas, and resource use decisions to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat

would enhance and maintain opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. As a result of

allowable use decisions associated with wildlife, cultural resources, and visual resources,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1097

1,739,972 acres of recreation setting across the planning area would be maintained. Alternative

B precludes or restricts development in all important recreation areas. Finally, allowable use

decisions associated with resources would maintain or enhance wildlife-dependent recreation on

1,890,599 acres, and 90 percent of WGFD special hunt units would be maintained and enhanced

to facilitate trophy and high-quality hunting opportunities.

4.6.6.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Because of authorized uses associated with mineral and energy resources, Alternative B would

result in 582,477 acres of recreation setting trending toward urban/industrial. This would

adversely impact recreationists who seek to recreate in areas with low road densities, high

levels of naturalness, and few people. Conversely, these impacts would beneficially impact

recreationists who enjoy recreating in a motorized/high road density environment with numerous

human disturbances and other users. All of these impacts would be outside important recreation

areas, because Alternative B closes important recreation areas to mineral and energy development.

Alternative B opens most of the planning area to ROW authorizations and land actions. Impacts

from these actions would be random and differ in scales. Locating ROWs in existing disturbed

areas would not alter the recreation setting. New disturbances associated with ROWs under this

alternative would result in recreation settings trending toward urban/industrial. This alternative

precludes all important recreation areas from most ROW development.

Alternative B closes the entire planning area to new range improvement projects that conflict

with other values. This would result in a decrease in the intensity and occurrence of range

improvements from Alternative A. Compared to Alternative A, this would increase visitor

demand and enticement across the planning area.

In addition, Alternative B manages for light grazing intensity across the planning area, which

would increase visitor preference for the area. Visitor experience inhibiting encounters with

livestock such as cows near camp, manure on the trail, and cows or impacts near water sources

would occur at a lower rate than under Alternative A across the planning area. Alternative B

closes Sweetwater Canyon, the Dubois Millsite, and portions of the Whiskey Mountain/Eastfork

area to livestock grazing, which would remove any potential for visitor encounters with livestock.

4.6.6.3.3.4. Special Designations

Because ACEC designations are a function of protecting relevant and important resources,

impacts to recreation from the designation of ACECs are captured above. Secondary impacts

to recreation from management of these special designations (e.g., trail viewshed protections

that also limit development in important recreation areas) are also described above. See the

Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and Visual Resources section for impacts to

recreation from the management of Congressionally Designated Trails and the Wild and Scenic

Rivers section for impacts to recreation from the management of WSRs.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation
1098 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.6.6.3.4. Alternative C

4.6.6.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C program management is not responsive to visitor demands for recreation settings,

activities, and/or outcomes in most of the important recreation areas. Visitor services under this

alternative will be a function of actions to protect resources, mitigate use and user conflicts, and

protect human health and safety. That is, visitor services under this alternative will focus on

accommodating priorities of other BLM programs rather than accommodating visitor demand.

This alternative also relocates or removes developed recreation sites or trails to accommodate

mineral and energy development activities.

Program management under Alternative C does not provide protections for several existing

developed recreation sites, and does not include any allowable use decisions to protect important

recreation areas. Protections under this alternative would not maintain existing investments, and

would not facilitate future development of new recreation sites or maintenance and enhancement

of important recreation areas.

Program management under this alternative would not sustain or enhance the recreation settings

of most of the important recreation areas, but focuses instead on mitigating adverse impacts from

other resource uses. This would result in several instances where visitor services are removed or

relocated to less than desirable locations to accommodate resource uses.

Alternative C manages the Dubois Mill Site (608 acres) as a SRMA. In SRMAs, the recreation

setting is managed to meet visitor demand for specific activities, experiences, and benefits. Within

these important areas, allowable uses (limits on other BLM programs) and management actions

are specifically developed to sustain and/or enhance the entire recreation setting. This alternative

does not identify any allowable use decisions for the Dubois Millsite. Therefore substantial visitor

service efforts would be initiated to mitigate impacts from other resource uses.

4.6.6.3.4.2. Resources

Alternative C does not close areas or limit motorized travel seasonally. As a result, no settings

in the planning area would trend toward primitive. Compared to Alternative A, this would

result in fewer opportunities for nonmotorized recreation activities and provide more acreage

for motorized activities. In addition, without allowable use decisions to sustain or enhance

recreation opportunities, standard stipulations on resources (e.g., wildlife and cultural resources)

could conflict with recreation settings and opportunities in important recreation areas. These

conflicts would be local and random; therefore, it is not possible to predict the scale and locations

of the impacts.

Alternative C does not include ACECs and limits resource protections to standard management.

Therefore, stipulations associated with resource protections would result in minor benefits

to recreation and would protect fewer acres than Alternative A. Development associated with

resource uses includes increased road densities, decreased naturalness, and increased contacts

with other humans (settings trending toward urban/industrial).

As a result of allowable use decisions associated with wildlife, cultural resources, and visual

resources, 16,330 acres of recreation setting across the planning area would be maintained.

Alternative C resource decisions would not preclude development in any of the important

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1099

recreation areas. Four of the important recreation areas without future development potential

might not show much change from Alternative A, which includes Beaver Creek Nordic Ski

Area, Castle Gardens, Coalmine/Government Draw, and Sinks Canyon. Finally, allowable use

decisions associated with resources would maintain or enhance wildlife-dependent recreation

on 16,330 acres and 6 percent of WGFD special hunt units would be maintained/enhanced to

facilitate trophy/high-quality hunting opportunities.

4.6.6.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Because of authorized uses associated with mineral and energy resources, this alternative would

result in 2,372,408 acres of recreation setting trending toward urban/industrial. This would

adversely impact recreationists who seek to recreate in areas with low road densities, high

levels of naturalness, and few people. Conversely, these impacts would beneficially impact

recreationists who enjoy recreating in a motorized/high road density environment with numerous

human disturbances and other users.

Under Alternative C, authorized uses associated with mineral and energy resources would impact

12 of the 16 important recreation areas (see Table 4.37, “Energy-Related Impacts to Recreation

Areas under Alternative C” (p. 1099)).

Table 4.37. Energy-Related Impacts to Recreation Areas under Alternative C

Important Recreation

Area

Impacts

Agate Flats Increased levels of wildcat exploration and small-scale development in support

of oil and gas extraction would impact the western (near Beaver Rim/Tin Cup

Mountain) portion of the area. Wind-energy development would occur throughout

the landscape. Several ROWs would continue to show disturbance across the

landscape. These activities would occur at a higher rate under Alternative C than

under Alternative A and result in the Agate Flats area demonstrating an overall

setting trend toward urban/industrial. In addition, these activities would impact

wildlife-dependent recreation and the WGFD Antelope hunt areas in the area.

Copper Mountain WSA Wind-energy development outside the WSA would dominate the view of

recreationists participating in activities in the WSA. Such development would be in

view from numerous locations in the WSA at an increased rate over Alternative A.

Dubois Badlands WSA Wind-energy development outside the WSA would dominate the view of

recreationists participating in activities in the WSA. Such development would be in

view from numerous locations in the WSA at an increased rate over Alternative A.

Dubois Mill Site Increased wildcat exploration and small-scale development in support of oil and gas

extraction would occur across the area. Wind-energy development adjacent to the

area would dominate the view of recreationists participating in activities in the

WSA. Such development would be in view from numerous locations in the WSA

at an increased rate over Alternative A.

Green Mountain Impacts to Green Mountain under Alternative C would occur across the entire

mountain because this alternative does not include an ACEC in this area. Increased

wildcat exploration and small-scale development in support of oil and gas extraction

would occur across the area. Wind-energy development would occur across the

entire area. Extensive uranium development could also occur across most of the

area. These activities would result in the Green Mountain area demonstrating a

major change in setting trending toward urban/industrial. This trend would occur

across more of the landscape then under Alternative A. These actions also would

reduce wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, reduce wildlife habitats, and

alter recreation settings in several WGFD Antelope hunt areas managed under

special criteria.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation
1100 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Important Recreation

Area

Impacts

Johnny Behind The Rocks Impacts to this area would be similar to those under Alternative A, with more areas

available for wildcat exploration and small-scale development in support of oil and

gas extraction throughout the area. Management of this important recreation area

under Alternative C focuses on the sole purpose of extracting bentonite. Bentonite

exploration requires complete stripping of vegetation and removal of multiple feet of

soil on slopes and ridge tops in the area. A bentonite mine in the Johnny Behind

The Rocks area would preclude recreation in the area.

Lander Slope/Red Canyon Alternative C management of the Lander Slope/Red Canyon area focuses on the

sole purpose of extracting phosphate. The potential for impacts to recreation from

phosphate development would be much higher under Alternative C than under

Alternative A because Alternative C does not include ACEC protections for the area.

Phosphate exploration requires complete stripping of vegetation and removal of

multiple feet of soil on slopes and ridge tops in the area. A phosphate mine on the

lander slope would preclude recreation use in the area.

Muskrat Basin Wildcat exploration and small-scale development in support of oil and gas extraction

would continue throughout the area at a higher rate than under Alternative A.

Wind-energy development would occur at a higher rate than under Alternative

A. In addition, phosphate mining could occur in an isolated portion of this area.

These activities would result in the Muskrat Basin area demonstrating a major

change in setting trending toward urban/industrial. These actions also would reduce

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, reduce wildlife habitats, and alter

recreation settings in several WGFD Antelope hunt areas and a mule deer hunt area

managed under special criteria.

Sweetwater Canyon Wind-energy development outside the WSA would dominate the view of

recreationists participating in activities in the WSA. Such development would

be in view from numerous locations in the WSA and at an increased level over

Alternative A.

Sweetwater Rocks Wind development and granite mining outside of the WSA would dominate the view

of recreationists participating in activities within the WSA. Such development would

be in view from numerous locations within the WSA.

Bus @ Baldwin Creek Without the Lander Slope ACEC encompassing this area, the probability of change

to this landscape from energy and mineral development would be higher under

Alternative C than under Alternative A.

Whiskey Mountain/Eastfork Without the ACECs encompassing this area, wind-energy development would be

likely. Wind-energy development in the area would alter the naturalness of the

landscape.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ROW right-of-way

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WSA Wilderness Study Area

Alternative C opens most of the planning area to ROWs and land actions. Impacts from these

actions would be random and differ in scale. Locating ROWs in existing disturbed areas would

not alter the recreation setting. New disturbances associated with ROWs under this alternative

would result in recreation settings trending toward urban/industrial. Designated corridors under

this alternative would impact the following important recreation areas: Green Mountain, Agate

Flats, Muskrat Basin, Lander Slope/Red Canyon, and Sweetwater Rocks. Alternative C does not

preclude any important recreation areas from ROW development.

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative C would result in increased development of range

improvement projects to support livestock grazing therefore visitor demand or enticement for

these areas would decrease. In addition, areas with high intensity grazing or an increasing trend

toward higher intensity grazing use would show a decrease in visitor preference. Alternative C

provides for grazing intensity that would continue to decrease visitor preference for numerous

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1101

areas across the planning area. Visitor encounters with livestock such as cows near camps,

manure on trails, and cows or impacts near water sources would continue across the planning

area and in all important recreation areas, including Sweetwater Canyon. This would inhibit

visitor experiences.

4.6.6.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not include ACECs. The impacts to recreation associated with excluding

ACECs is captured above. Additionally, impacts to recreation from the management of

Congressionally Designated Trails and WSRs are discussed in the Congressionally Designated

Trails – Recreation and Visual Resources and Wild and Scenic Rivers sections. Secondary impacts

to recreation from not managing these special designations (e.g., trail viewshed protections that

also limit development in important recreation areas) are described above.

4.6.6.3.5. Alternative D

4.6.6.3.5.1. Program Management

Program management under this alternative is very similar to Alternative B, with the following

differences: Alternative D closes 6,595 (as opposed to 7,500) acres to motorized activities to

meet specific visitor demands in the Johnny Behind the Rocks, the Bus @ Baldwin Creek, and

the Dubois Mill Site areas. In addition, the alternative closes fewer acres than Alternative B in

important wildlife-dependent recreation areas (Green Mountain and Red Canyon) to ensure a

diversity of wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. The year-round closures would result in

fewer acres than Alternative B but more acres than Alternative A or C trending toward primitive

settings as a direct result of actions to enhance nonmotorized recreation. This trend would reduce

opportunities for motorized recreation activities and enhance opportunities for nonmotorized

activities.

Program management under Alternative D is responsive to visitor demands. The alternative

increases (more than Alternative A but less than Alternative B) visitor services in most (10 of the

12) important recreation areas and provides for allowable use decisions that ensure the future

recreational enjoyment of these areas.

As with Alternative B, Alternative D manages 6 important recreation areas (totaling 10 acres fewer

acres than Alternative B) as SRMAs. In SRMAs, the recreation setting is managed to meet visitor

demands for specific activities, experiences, and benefits. In these important areas, allowable uses

(limits on other BLM programs) and management actions are specifically developed to sustain

and/or enhance the entire recreation setting. The following important recreation areas would be in

SRMAs to meet specific visitor demands: Dubois Mill Site, Johnny Behind the Rocks, the Bus @

Baldwin Creek, Sinks Canyon, Sweetwater Canyon, and Sweetwater Rocks.

Alternative D also manages four important recreation areas (not SRMAs) in a manner that meets a

less specific/more diverse visitor demand in concert with other program (wildlife) objectives.

Four of the important recreation areas will be managed as distinct ERMAs. Distinct ERMAs

represent areas where management focuses on providing a diversity of recreation opportunities,

within the confines of both recreation and non-recreation program objectives. In distinct ERMAs,

allowable uses and management actions address recreation/tourism issues, activities, and conflicts

and/or single important attributes (such as remoteness) of the area. This focus on harmonizing

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation
1102 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

visitor services, recreation opportunity diversity, and other program priorities constitutes an

increased level of visitor services over Alternative A. Four of the 12 important recreation areas

will be managed as distinct ERMAs (Beaver Creek Nordic Ski Area, Green Mountain, Lander

Slope/Red Canyon, and Whiskey Mountain/Eastfork).

Program management under Alternative D would protect more existing developed recreation sites

than Alternative A. Alternative D would protect future developed sites and investments in the

Green Mountain area only. The alternative will apply allowable use decisions to protect more

important recreation areas than Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, SRPs would not be issued for activities in Core Area that would adversely

impact greater sage-grouse, and the BLM would apply Required Design Features that would limit

adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse from authorized activities.

Program management under Alternative D identifies actions (more than Alternative A but fewer

than Alternative B) to enhance wildlife-dependent recreation, including:

1. Specifically identifying Green Mountain and Lander Slope/Red Canyon as distinct ERMAs

for wildlife-dependent recreation.

2. Increasing visitor services in these distinct ERMAs to facilitate wildlife-dependent

recreation.

3. Managing the Dubois Mill Site, Johnny Behind the Rocks, Sweetwater Canyon, and

Sweetwater Rocks SRMAs to enhance specific recreation opportunities, including

wildlife-dependent recreation.

4. Applying allowable use decisions in the above SRMAs to sustain/enhance the recreation

setting to provide specific recreation opportunities associated with wildlife-dependent

recreation.

4.6.6.3.5.2. Resources

Alternative D closes 26,357 acres to motorized vehicles year-round to protect resources. The

year-round closures would result in 26,357 acres trending toward primitive settings. This trend

would reduce opportunities for motorized recreation activities and enhance opportunities for

nonmotorized activities. Stipulations on resources (e.g., wildlife and cultural resources) could

conflict with recreation settings and opportunities in important recreation areas. These conflicts

would be local and random and would occur at a much lower rate than under Alternative A.

Allowable use decisions to protect resources (e.g., wildlife) would limit development associated

with resource uses, including increased road densities, decreased naturalness, and increased

contacts with other humans (setting trending toward urban/industrial). Therefore, most allowable

use decisions associated with resources would result in the maintenance of recreation settings.

This would be particularly true in Core Area, but would also apply to protections for the benefit of

other resources, including wildlife and historic trails. The Required Design Features that would

reduce road densities and require reclamation of unnecessary roads would have adverse impacts

on recreation similar to impacts under Alternative B.

As a result of allowable use decisions associated with wildlife, cultural resources, and visual

resources, 714,824 acres of recreation setting across the planning area would be maintained.

Alternative D precludes or restricts development in all important recreation areas, except

those listed in Table 4.38, “Energy-Related Impacts to Recreation Areas under Alternative

D” (p. 1103). Finally, allowable use decisions associated with resources would maintain or

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1103

enhance wildlife-dependent recreation on 33 percent of WGFD special hunt units which would be

maintained/enhanced to facilitate trophy/high-quality hunting opportunities.

4.6.6.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Because of authorized uses associated with mineral and energy resources, this alternative would

result in 1,653,961 acres of recreation setting trending toward urban/industrial. This would

adversely impact recreationists who seek to recreate in areas with low road densities, high

levels of naturalness, and few people. Conversely, these impacts would beneficially impact

recreationists who enjoy recreating in a motorized/high road density environment with numerous

human disturbances and other users. Most of these impacts would be outside important recreation

areas, except for the areas listed in Table 4.38, “Energy-Related Impacts to Recreation Areas

under Alternative D” (p. 1103).

Table 4.38. Energy-Related Impacts to Recreation Areas under Alternative D

Important Recreation Area Impacts

Agate Flats Similar to Alternative C, with fewer impacts due to more restrictions to support

Congressionally Designated Trails and the Sweetwater Rocks SRMA

Copper Mountain WSA Same as Alternative A.

Muskrat Basin Same as Alternative C.

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

WSA Wilderness Study Area

Alternative D opens most of the planning area to ROWs and land actions. Impacts from these

actions would be random and differ in scale. Locating ROWs in existing disturbed areas would

not alter the recreation setting. New disturbances associated with ROWs under this alternative

would result in recreation settings trending toward urban/industrial. This alternative precludes

all important recreation areas from most ROW development.

Impacts to recreationists as a result of livestock grazing would be similar to Alternative C.

4.6.6.3.5.4. Special Designations

Because ACEC designations are a function of protecting relevant and important resources,

impacts to recreation from the designation of ACECs are described above. Secondary impacts

to recreation from management of these special designations (e.g., trail viewshed protections

that also limit development in important recreation areas) are also described above. See the

Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and Visual Resources section for impacts to

recreation from the management of Congressionally Designated Trails and the Wild and Scenic

Rivers section for impacts to recreation from the management of WSRs.

4.7. Special Designations

4.7.1. Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural and Historic

Resources

In the 1970s and 1980s, Congress designated the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony

Express NHTs. These historic trails are some of the most significant in the nation; they are

prime examples of the 19th Century expansion of the United States and the mass migration west

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Special Designations
1104 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

across the continent. Spanning the western half of the United States, the four NHTs all pass

through Wyoming on their way to South Pass, the crossing of the Continental Divide. In the

planning area, the NHTs follow essentially the same route as they wind through the Sweetwater

Valley. The landscape the trails traverse in this area is little changed from the mid-1800s, with

few modern developments. Because the NHTs retain excellent historical settings in this area,

the National Park Service (NPS) has designated the entire route in the planning area as a High

Potential Segment, which the National Trails System Act defines as a trail resource most worthy

of protection and preservation.

In the late 1990s and 2000s, public use of the NHTs increased, primarily because of an increase

in interest by groups from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Their interest in

commemorating and experiencing what their pioneer ancestors went through led to reenactments

of handcart and wagon treks along the NHTs. At one point during the early 2000s, as many as

12,000 people per year with handcarts and support vehicles, walked parts of the NHTs in the

planning area. This activity adversely impacted the trails and their settings. Restrictions on the

number of trekkers were eventually instituted, and impacts are now more under control.

Adverse impacts to NHTs typically result in a loss of integrity of the resource, or in some

cases a loss of archeological information. Adverse impacts to significant trail resources on

BLM-administered lands occur for several reasons, including actions that physically damage or

destroy all or parts of an NHT; actions that alter a significant element of a trail; actions that

introduce visual, atmospheric (air), or audible (noise) elements that can diminish the historical

integrity of an NHT; and a lack of action, which, in certain cases, can allow a trail resource to

deteriorate. Adverse impacts can also occur to NHTs from increased access to areas with trail

resources, resulting in increased use, erosion, looting, and vandalism.

The four NHTs are all highly significant for their associations with important events in American

history. In the planning area, these NHTs are also significant for their good to excellent historical

settings, which help visitors imagine what it was like along these trails in the 1800s. Adverse

impacts to these values can result for the reasons described above, and would be both short-term

and long-term because some adverse impacts can be reversed while others cannot.

In some cases, NHT resources are also significant for their scientific data potential, especially

at historic sites along the NHTs. Actions that cause physical damage or destruction, or the lack

of action and neglect, can result in adverse impacts to these resources. These impacts would be

long-term because, once a resource is damaged or disturbed, the impact cannot be reversed.

Beneficial impacts to NHTs occur from management actions that enhance the quality of that

resource. Stabilization and repair of historic structures at Gilespie Place, fencing around standing

structures and gravesites along the trails, and erosion control measures are examples of actions

that result in beneficial impacts. Most of these beneficial impacts would be long-term, but

eventually, adverse natural and/or human influences would require more measures to keep these

resources from degrading.

Congressional designation of a trail as part of the National Trails System signifies that the

resource is of exceptional scenic, recreational, and/or historic value.

4.7.1.1. Summary of Impacts

Impacts to NHTs vary by alternative in the following ways: (1) alternatives A and C are similar in

their protections, but Alternative A generally affords more protections than Alternative C; (2)

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural and

Historic Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1105

alternatives A and C focus on protecting the immediate area around NHTs, but do not address

visual impacts farther away from the trails; (3) Alternative B provides much better protection for

NHTs and protects historic settings to a high degree; (4) Alternative D is far more protective than

either Alternative A or Alternative C, and somewhat less protective than Alternative B.

4.7.1.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● NHTs, especially High Potential Sites and Segments, are managed and protected in accordance

with the National Trails System Act, Section 106 of the NHPA, the National Landscape

Conservation System Act, Executive Order 13195, and BLM IM Washington Office-2009-215

(BLM 2009i). Additional guidance is being updated as this EIS is being written to provide

more specific management options.

● Activities occurring on private lands will not be affected by any BLM management

prescriptions unless those activities involve federal assistance or require a federal license. For

instance, if a landowner or land user wishes to have a privately-funded, privately-licensed

development (e.g., and oil and gas well, a wind tower, a livestock reservoir, a cabin, etc.) built

on private land, there is no BLM involvement. However, if the development involves federal

assistance or requires a federal license, then BLM would be required to take into account the

development's impacts upon important cultural resources, including the NHTs.

● Direct and indirect impacts can result from a variety of natural and human-caused actions,

such as those that physically alter, damage, or destroy all or part of the trail; improved access,

which brings increased use to an area, altering characteristics of the surrounding environment

that contribute to trail importance; the introduction of visual or audible elements out of

character with the trail or that alter its historic setting; and neglect of the trail to the extent

that it deteriorates or is destroyed.

● The BLM encourages opportunities to cooperate with private landowners to minimize or

eliminate disturbance to NHTs.

● Recognizing that historic trails often comprise numerous routes rather than a single trace, all

protective zones are measured from the outer edges of the trails rather than at a centerline.

● Programmatic management for units of the NLCS, including Congressionally Designated

Trails, is 1⁄4 mile from the edges of the trails plus such additional distance to avoid or

mitigate adverse effects as defined by the NHPA. However, more recent guidance identifies

management based on trail setting and the nature and purpose of trail management.

● Certain projects, due to size or topography, could require consideration of visual intrusions

into the setting beyond the foreground or middleground zones to avoid or mitigate adverse

effects as defined by the NHPA.

● Recreational or heritage tourism use of the NHTs will increase over time. Overuse of NHTs

on public lands will be controlled through permitting mechanisms and special use permits.

● Without allowable use decisions along the NHTs and associated landscapes, future

actions/authorizations will continue to conflict with the enabling legislation and supporting

documentation of the NHTs.

● The direction in the enabling legislation and supporting documentation will be better achieved

through complementary allowable use decisions (e.g., NSO for oil and gas).

● Alternatives that protect a larger landscape around trails will better achieve the direction

contained in the enabling legislation and supporting documentation associated with the NHTs.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural

and Historic Resources
1106 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.7.1.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Standard procedures have been developed over the years to help address potential adverse impacts

to NHT resources. Because they are Congressionally Designated Trails, priority is given to

avoiding or mitigating impacts from development and use. Standard management and protection

procedures, guided by the National Trails System Act and the NHPA, include avoidance,

screening projects from the trails behind natural features, innovative redesign or camouflaging of

projects, and using existing disturbances along trails for placement of projects. These standard

procedures have protected NHT resources from adverse impacts and damage in many cases.

However, if total avoidance has not been feasible, mitigation measures designed to minimize

impacts to the NHTs and their historic settings have been continually improved and implemented

over the years. All of the alternatives are guided by these standard procedures.

However, the standard procedures have not always adequately protected the historic settings of

NHTs. For example, large and visible projects some distance away have intruded on their intact

historic settings. A modern powerline a few miles from the Oregon Trail has resulted in adverse

impacts to its historical integrity.

Another type of adverse impact to NHT resources common to all alternatives is from increased

public use of lands, which can occur for several reasons. One is improved access to formerly

remote areas. This is common in areas where development allows for the creation of new roads.

Another reason is the increased popularity and availability of OHVs, which also allows access to

formerly remote areas. A third reason is increased public interest in specific historic sites or areas.

This is an especially serious impact from users of the Mormon Pioneer NHT. As public use of

lands increases from all these causes, so can the impact to NHT resources. As more use occurs,

more NHTs are visited and walked or driven over. Some of these resources have been looted or

vandalized. This impact would occur under any of the alternatives because access, OHV use, and

public use and interest along the NHTs are all expected to increase.

A beneficial impact common to all alternatives is the indirect protection provided by the recent

greater sage-grouse Core Area management policy. Approximately 75 percent of the NHTs and

their surroundings are in the Core Area, and management to protect the Core Area should also

reduce adverse impacts to the settings of the NHTs.

As discussed in other resource analyses, fire management is extremely limited in greater

sage-grouse Core Area where annual precipitation is below 12 inches. Accordingly, analysis of

the differences in impacts related to each alternative’s fire management is limited to areas either

outside Core Area or in areas that receive more than 12 inches of precipitation per year. Greater

sage-grouse protections also require full suppression of wildfire in greater sage-grouse Core Area

habitat. The portions of the NHT settings that are not in Core Area, such as parts of South Pass,

would be managed for full suppression to protect other values.

There are also several NHT-related withdrawals that protect NHT resources (Devil’s Gate,

Martin’s Cove, Split Rock, and Rocky Ridge) that offer protection from the impacts of mining.

These are withdrawals that do not expire and do not vary by alternatives. Therefore, they are

analyzed only to provide context to management that does vary by alternative.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural and

Historic Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1107

4.7.1.3.2. Alternative A

4.7.1.3.2.1. Program Management

In 1986, the Wyoming BLM approved the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails

Management Plan (BLM 1986), which guided protection and management along BLM portions

of these trails in Wyoming. In 1987, the Lander RMP used the 1986 plan as its basis for decisions

affecting the NHTs. In 1999, the California and Pony Express trails, which followed the same

route as the Oregon and Mormon trails in the planning area, were added to the NHTs and the same

management prescriptions were adopted. This management includes restrictions on development

within 1⁄4 mile of the NHTs, and recommendations for making the trails more accessible and

enjoyable for the public. Use on the NHTs has greatly increased since the late 1990s, and use

restrictions were implemented in the 2000s to protect the trail from the impacts of heavy use. The

protection and management procedures developed since the 1980s are still in use. Impacts to the

NHTs from this management are beneficial.

4.7.1.3.2.2. Resources

Alternative A air quality management consists primarily of non-intervention, and would result

in a neutral or slightly adverse impact to the NHTs. Efforts to maintain air quality around the

trails would help maintain their important qualities, while degradation of air quality would

adversely impact these resources by reducing the visibility of the trail setting. General air

quality management under Alternative A allows degradation up to the point of concentrations

allowed under the CAA. In general, this management would result a neutral or slightly adverse

impact to the NHTs.

Fire and fuels management under Alternative A would have the potential to result in two kinds

of adverse impacts to cultural resources: building fire lines with heavy equipment and allowing

fires to burn without suppression. Fire lines impact NHTs through surface disturbance, and

allowing fires to burn adversely impacts resources through burning or heating of NHT-related

structures and artifacts. However, the fire and fuels program has been notified about the presence

and location of the NHTs and their associated sites, and this should protect those resources from

surface disturbance associated with fire suppression activities.

Alternative A designates the NHTs as VRM Class II for 1⁄4 mile (and sometimes more) on each

side. Outside this Class II area, VRM is Class IV. This management protects the immediate

foreground of the NHTs, but does not protect the foreground, middle ground, or background

of the NHTs outside this area. Therefore, the impacts from Alternative A would be beneficial

for the first 1⁄4 mile, and adverse thereafter. See the Visual Resources and Recreation sections

for more information.

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water,

biological resources, and special designations) under Alternative A provide additional protections

for NHT resources. A total of 27,728 acres surrounding the trails, and additional acres identified

on a site-specific basis, are protected from surface disturbances under this alternative.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural

and Historic Resources
1108 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.1.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A provides some protections for NHTs from locatable mineral exploration.

Alternative A does not withdraw any lands from locatable mineral development. Because the

NHTs are within an ACEC, Plans of Operation are required for mining activities within 1⁄4 mile of

the trails. These plans require NHPA compliance for mining exploration, but do not prohibit those

operations. However, outside the withdrawals and the 1⁄4 mile each side Plan of Operations zone,

there are no protections from locatable mineral exploration under 5 acres, and the historic settings

of the trails are subject to adverse impacts due to development activities. This is especially true

in areas of high potential for mining activity, such as the South Pass-Lewiston area. Current

management provides some protections to the immediate foreground of the NHTs, but does not

protect the historic settings of the NHTs outside this area. Therefore, impacts under Alternative A

would be both beneficial and adverse. Chapter 2 describes management under each alternative

and the number of acres affected by proposed land use decisions.

Under Alternative A, adverse impacts to the NHTs from leasable fluid and solid minerals,

and mineral materials management would be similar to impacts from locatable minerals

management. Within 1⁄4 mile of the NHTs, NSO or closure-type stipulations are enforced to

protect trail resources. However, outside the 1⁄4 mile either side zone, there are no protections

specific to development for the NHTs, and the historic setting of the trails is subject to adverse

impacts. These impacts are currently managed on a case-by-case basis, and current protection

measures usually focus on reducing impacts rather than preventing them. The most likely

adverse impact to the NHTs would be from leasable phosphate minerals exploration, because

potentially valuable phosphate outcrops cross the trails in the Upper Sweetwater River region

above Sweetwater Station. Current management protects the immediate foreground of the NHTs,

but is limited in protecting the historic settings of the NHTs outside this area. Therefore, impacts

under Alternative A would be beneficial, but only within the 1⁄4-mile buffer, and potentially

very adverse to NHT setting.

Highly visible ROW projects, such as industrial wind-energy development, mines, gas plants,

power plants, and large transmission lines, can adversely impact NHTs in substantial ways. For

example, wind turbines rising to 400 or more feet or a gas plant near an NHT with good historical

settings would seriously and adversely impact the trail’s value as a historic resource. Alternative

A includes no protections from these types of projects beyond standard NHPA measures. The

most highly visible ROW projects anticipated along the NHTs are wind-energy developments and

associated large transmission lines, due to high wind-energy potential in the area.

Under Alternative A, adverse impacts to the NHTs from range improvement projects would be

similar to impacts from leasable fluid minerals, leasable solid minerals, and mineral material

management, although likely on a lesser scale. Within 1⁄4 mile of the NHTs, avoidance-type

stipulations for range developments are typically enforced to protect trail resources. However,

outside 1⁄4 mile on either side, there are no RMP protections specific to development for the NHTs,

and the historic setting of the trails would be subject to adverse impacts due to the introduction

of infrastructure and livestock and the loss of vegetation often associated with these types of

improvements. These adverse impacts would be managed on a case-by-case basis, and protection

measures under Alternative A focus on reducing adverse impacts rather than preventing them.

The most likely adverse impact to the NHTs would be from fencing projects that cross the NHTs,

which are periodically proposed and sometimes allowed. Alternative A management protects the

immediate foreground of the NHTs, but is limited in protecting the historic settings of the NHTs

outside this area. Therefore, impacts under Alternative A would be both beneficial and adverse.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural and

Historic Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1109

Recreational activities along the NHTs have increased substantially since the mid-1990s, and

impacts to the trails have risen accordingly. Alternative A provides for the permitting of larger

groups using the NHTs, which would help keep adverse impacts to the trails to a low level. This

management has slowed impacts to the trails, but has not prevented them. As a result, there would

be a low level of adverse impacts from recreation management impacts under Alternative A.

4.7.1.3.2.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative A, the NHTs are recognized as Congressionally Designated Trails and an

ACEC. These designations come with protective measures, which were incorporated into the

1987 RMP. These protections beneficially impact the NHTs.

4.7.1.3.3. Alternative B

4.7.1.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B increases proactive management over Alternative A. Management under Alternative

B provides much more focus and attention to the protection and recreational uses of the NHTs.

4.7.1.3.3.2. Resources

Alternative B specifies that air quality management reduce emissions and improve air quality.

This action would beneficially impact NHTs more than Alternative A by improving trail settings.

Alternative B specifies that full suppression would be used near identified cultural sites, such as

the NHTs, to protect them from the impacts of fire. Identifying the NHTs in advance, making

firefighters aware of their locations, and planning for their protection would preserve important

resources, and prevent impacts from fire suppression activities.

Alternative B manages more lands as VRM Class I and II visual resources than Alternative A;

this would help protect NHT resources and their settings from the introduction of modern visual

intrusions. The entire historic setting of the NHTs is in a VRM Class II area under Alternative

B, which would provide substantially better protections for the historic settings of the trails

than would Alternative A. See the Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and Visual

Resources section for more information.

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water,

biological resources, and special designations) are greatest under Alternative B, providing

additional protections for NHT resources and reducing adverse impacts. This is particularly true in

connection with protections for the benefit of greater sage-grouse nesting habitat and leks. Under

Alternative B, 1,229,358 acres are within the 15-mile NHT protection buffer, and 89 percent of

those acres are closed to surface disturbance primarily for the protection of greater sage-grouse.

4.7.1.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Unlike Alternative A, which proposes to withdraw no new lands from locatable mineral entry,

Alternative B proposes to withdraw 1.6 million acres. This would protect NHT resources from

potential disturbances that would adversely affect the NHTs because this area includes most of the

historical setting of the NHTs. Although there are limited locatable minerals identified in this

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural

and Historic Resources
1110 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

area, exploratory activity does take place and involves surface-disturbing activities that adversely

impact setting. Alternative B would result in the most substantial beneficial impacts in the South

Pass-Lewiston area, where impacts from mining would be most likely to occur along the NHTs.

Alternative B closes or places major constraints on leasable fluid and solid minerals, and mineral

materials exploration and development on much more land than Alternative A; this would

protect NHTs from potential disturbances. Alternative B closes NHTs and almost all of their

historical settings; this would provide much better protections than Alternative A and no adverse

impacts to the NHTs would occur from these activities. This management would result in the

most substantial beneficial impacts in the Upper Sweetwater River area, where impacts from

phosphate mining would be most likely to occur along the NHTs. Although the areas closed under

Alternative B have low or no potential for oil and gas, this management would ensure that the

setting is protected even if technology changes over the next 20 years.

Alternative B restricts wind-energy development, powerlines, and gas plants, and large ROWs

to a much greater extent than Alternative A (1,919,029 acres). This alternative closes the entire

length of the NHTs from wind-energy development, large mines, and ROWs for a distance of

approximately 15 to 20 miles; this would be much more protective to NHTs than Alternative A.

These large projects are the most likely to adversely impact NHT settings because they provide a

high level of contrast due to their size and design. Alternative B would result in more beneficial

impacts than Alternative A because it limits perpendicular trail crossings to only a limited number

of identified locations and therefore would prevent ROW intrusions on the NHTs.

Alternative B closes more areas to visible range improvement projects than Alternative A; this

would protect NHTs from potential disturbances. NHTs and 3 miles either side are closed to

visible range developments; therefore, Alternative B would provide much better protections than

Alternative A. It is not possible to determine the number of acres closed to range improvement

projects under Alternative B because that would depend on whether the project would be visible

from the NHTs, which requires a site-specific analysis. However, it is likely that a project within

3 miles of the NHTs would be visible. This management would mostly affect fencing projects

that would cross the NHTs.

Alternative B directs more recreational activities to the Auto Tour Route, and places more

emphasis on trail protection on the Group Reenactment and Undeveloped sections of the trails.

This would provide slightly to moderately more protections than Alternative A. Refer to the

Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and Visual Resources section for an analysis

of this impact.

4.7.1.3.3.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative B, the NHTs ACEC is expanded to five miles on each side of the trails. This

would enhance the protection of NHTs by reducing the potential for adverse impacts to their intact

historical settings. This alternative provides much greater protection for the NHTs compared to

Alternative A. However, this management is somewhat redundant to the Alternative B withdrawal

of 5 miles from locatable minerals since the main management tool that comes with ACEC

designation is the requirement of a Plan of Operations for mining development less than 5 acres.

Since Alternative B withdraws these lands there is no need for a Plan of Operations, except for

locations where a claim has already been staked.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural and

Historic Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1111

4.7.1.3.4. Alternative C

4.7.1.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C decreases proactive management as compared to Alternative B. The minimum

actions necessary to comply with regulations will be applied to the NHTs, which would increase

adverse impacts to all the NHTs in the planning area.

4.7.1.3.4.2. Resources

Alternative C manages air quality the same as Alternative A, and would result in the same

marginally adverse impacts to the NHTs, compared to Alternative B, which would result in

more beneficial impacts both from site-specific air resources management and overall air quality

management.

Alternative C fire and fuels management would result in adverse impacts the same as Alternative

A, and more than Alternative B.

Alternative C classifies less land as VRM Classes I and II than Alternative A, and substantially

less than Alternative B, which would provide less protection for NHTs from visual modern

intrusions. Alternative C designates a smaller area around NHTs as VRM Class II, and designates

the surrounding areas as VRM Class III. Therefore, Alternative C would result in more adverse

impacts than Alternative A or B because the historical setting of the NHTs would be degraded

due to modern developments. See the Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and

Visual Resources section for more information.

Because Alternative C places more emphasis on resource use, it includes fewer restrictions on

surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water, biological

resources, and special designations). Therefore, Alternative C would result in more adverse

impacts to NHTs than alternatives A and B. These impacts are described in other resource

sections. The most substantial difference between alternatives B, A, and C is the acreage are

closed to surface disturbance for the protection of greater sage-grouse. Because much of the

NHTs are in areas closed for this reason (approximately 89 percent of the 15 miles on either side

of the NHTs are in areas closed under Alternative B), this sensitive species management would

result in substantial beneficial impacts to NHTs that would be minimal under alternatives A and C.

4.7.1.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C provides almost no protection for NHTs from locatable mineral exploration.

Locatable minerals mining regulations do not follow the standard protection measures described

above and, unless the exploration disturbs more than 5 acres, NHTs are afforded little or no

protection from the impacts of this type of mining. Because Alternative C does not include NHT

and South Pass Historic Mining Area ACECs, lands in those ACECs under other alternative would

not be subject to Plans of Operation protections under this alternative. Therefore, Alternative

C does not protect NHTs from the adverse impacts of locatable mineral developments. This is

especially true in areas of high potential for mining activity, such as the South Pass-Lewiston area.

Under Alternative C, adverse impacts to the NHTs from leasable fluid minerals, leasable solid

minerals, and mineral materials management would be similar to adverse impacts under

Alternative A, and would be substantially more adverse than under Alternative B. NSO and

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural

and Historic Resources
1112 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

closed-type stipulations are enforced to protect NHTs only within 1⁄4 mile of either side. Outside

the 1⁄4-mile buffer, there are no limits on mineral development, and the historic setting of the

trails would be subject to adverse impacts. These impacts are managed on a case-by-case basis,

and protection measures focus on reducing impacts rather than preventing them. Alternative C

management protects the immediate foreground of the NHTs, but is limited in protecting the

historic settings of the NHTs outside this area; Alternative B extends the protections for 15 to 20

miles. Therefore, the impacts under Alternative C would be similar to impacts under Alternative

A, and substantially more adverse than under Alternative B. The most likely impact to the NHTs

would be from leasable phosphate minerals exploration, because potentially valuable phosphate

outcrops, covering approximately 26,800 acres, cross the trails in the Upper Sweetwater River

region above Sweetwater Station.

Alternative C management of wind-energy developments, mines, and large ROWs is the same

as Alternative A and would result in impacts much less beneficial than Alternative B. Highly

visible ROW projects, such as wind-energy developments, gas plants, power plants, and large

transmission lines, can adversely impact NHTs in substantial ways. For example, a wind-energy

development or gas plant near an NHT with good historical settings would seriously impact the

trail’s value as a historic resource. Alternative C includes no protections from these types of

projects other than standard NHPA measures. Because there are lands with high potential for

industrial wind-energy development open under alternatives A and C, lands that are exclusion

areas under Alternative B, it would be likely that there would be adverse impacts from this type of

development under Alternative C. The most highly visible projects anticipated along the NHTs

are wind-energy developments and associated large transmission lines, due to high wind-energy

potential in the area.

Under Alternative C, adverse impacts to NHTs from range development projects would be similar

to impacts under Alternative A. Alternative C enforces avoidance-type stipulations within 1⁄4

mile on either side of NHTs to protect trail resources. However, outside the 1⁄4-mile on either

side buffer, there are no protections for NHTs specific to range improvement projects, and the

historic setting of the trails would be subject to adverse impacts similar to those under Alternative

B. These impacts would be managed on a case-by-case basis, and protective measures would

focus on reducing impacts rather than preventing them. Alternative C management protects the

immediate foreground of the NHTs, but is limited in protecting the historic settings of the NHTs

outside of that area. Therefore, impacts under Alternative C would be similar to impacts under

Alternative A, and much more adverse than under Alternative B. The most likely impact to NHTs

would from fencing projects that cross the NHTs.

Impacts from recreation management would be the same under Alternative C as Alternative A.

See above under Alternative B for a comparison of alternatives A and B.

4.7.1.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not include any ACECs or WSRs. Under Alternative C, Congressionally

Designated Trails would be generally protected out to 1⁄4 mile on each side, except from locatable

minerals exploration. Alternative C retains the pre-FLPMA withdrawals but does not include new

locatable mineral withdrawals. This alternative removes Plan of Operations requirements and

opens the lands along the NHTs to unrestricted mining. Therefore, Alternative C would result

in more adverse impacts than Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural and

Historic Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1113

4.7.1.3.5. Alternative D

4.7.1.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D establishes an NTMC that applies uniform oil and gas management throughout the

corridor and does not distinguish between the NHTs and the CDNST. The different issues and

management approaches between the NHTs and the CDNST, as determined by their nature and

purposes, is captured by setting the boundaries of the NTMC. Where the CDNST travels through

a more industrially developed area toward Rawlins, at some distance from the NHTs, the corridor

width is 1⁄4 mile on either side of the CDNST to protect user safety. However, when the CDNST

joins the NHTs and is in primarily undeveloped areas with intact setting, the NTMC expands to

meet the nature and purposes of the five Congressionally Designated Trails. In general, the

management of the NTMC under Alternative D includes close to the same level of proactive

management as Alternative B, which is more than alternatives A and C. Alternative D would

better prevent impacts to the five Congressionally Designated Trails than current management

(Alternative A) by more fully protecting the historical settings of the trails and their associated

sites than Alternative A or C, and almost as well as Alternative B.

4.7.1.3.5.2. Resources

Air quality management under Alternative D is the same as Alternative A with the same

generally neutral impact to the Congressionally Designated Trails. However, management of air

emissions is important to address atmospheric conditions that could impact setting. Alternative

D management of soil and water resources would be less beneficial than management under

Alternative B, but more beneficial than management under alternatives A and C. Restrictions

under Alternative D in terms of limiting surface disturbance are not as broad as under Alternative

B, but would provide much more protection than Alternative A or Alternative C.

Alternative D protections for greater sage-grouse and other wildlife close fewer acres to surface

disturbance than Alternative B, but substantially more acres than Alternative A or Alternative

C. Consequently, Alternative D special status species management would be substantially more

beneficial to NHTs than Alternative A or Alternative C, and almost as beneficial as Alternative

B. Required Design Features to limit adverse impacts from surface disturbance would limit the

adverse impacts that would otherwise occur, but not to the extent of Alternative B.

Alternative D classifies approximately 580,697 more acres of BLM-administered surface as VRM

Classes I and II than Alternative A, but 502,514 fewer acres than Alternative B. Therefore,

Alternative D would protect substantially more trail resources from the introduction of modern

visual intrusions than alternatives A and C, but substantially less than Alternative B. Alternative

D classifies utility corridor crossings as VRM Class III, the same as Alternative B and more

protective than alternatives A and C.

In general, restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g.,

soil, water, biological, and visual resources) are the most under Alternative B, with Alternative D

providing a moderate amount of protection and alternatives A and C affording substantially less

protection for the Congressionally Designated Trails.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural

and Historic Resources
1114 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.1.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D withdraws more acres (425,935) of mineral estate from locatable mineral entry

than Alternative A, but much less than Alternative B, which proposes to withdraw 1,632,605

acres. Alternative D specifically withdraws the ruts and swales and 10 feet on either side of the

NHTs. The alternatives A, C, and D withdrawals focus on specific trail-associated historic sites,

while Alternative B proposes to withdraw the entire landscape out to 5 miles around the trails.

Therefore, Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C, but

less than Alternative B. Although some of the lands that are proposed for withdrawal under

Alternative B have very low or no identified potential for locatable minerals, that is not the case in

all areas, particularly near South Pass. The impacts from locatable mineral management under

Alternative D are similar to impacts under Alternative B where locatable mineral potential exists.

Applying NSO to the NTMC would limit the adverse impacts to NHT resources, but less than the

closure to oil and gas leasing under Alternative B. However, the difference in impacts between

the two alternatives is limited by the very low or no potential for oil and gas in the area. The

Required Design Features applied under Alternative D reduce adverse impacts associated with

development, but less than Alternative B, which prohibits those activities. The Beaver Rim MLP

management of the lands north of the NHTs and west of Jeffrey City provide beneficial impacts to

lands adjoining the NTMC, including some within the viewshed of places within the NTMC.

Alternative B management extends CSU protections out to a distance of 5 miles from the NHTs,

while Alternative D relies on VRM Class II and Class III objectives. It is likely that Alternative B

would have a slightly less adverse impact to the NHTs than Alternative D, but this difference

would be minor. The difference could be evaluated only on a site-specific basis in response to

a specific proposal, which would identify object height, size, placement and other site-specific

factors. Alternative D oil and gas management would be far less adverse to the NHTs than either

Alternative A or C.

Alternative D prohibits geophysical exploration in areas managed as NSO to oil and gas, with

the exception that the NTMC is closed to geophysical exploration within a mile of the CDNST

and NHTs, which is less closure than the NSO area. This would allow more adverse impacts to

the NHTs from geophysical exploration. Trail-related SRMAs are closed to exploration during

the heavy visitor-use season. This management adversely impacts geophysical exploration, and

the oil and gas program, but has much less adverse impacts than the trails protections under

Alternative B.

Alternative D manages leasable solid minerals and mineral materials disposals, the same as

Alternative B, and would be much more protective than alternatives A and C. The potential for

leasable solid minerals is generally low along the NHTs, so restrictions are not expected to have

substantial impacts on development of these minerals. Mineral materials are present in the area,

although there will likely be little demand for those materials.

Realty actions, including ROWs and designated corridors, are less protective of the NHTs

under Alternative D and would therefore allow more adverse impacts than Alternative B. The

designated corridor along Bison Basin Road crosses the NHTs in a new corridor designation.

Even if protective management is required for such things as reclamation, new disturbances

would adversely impact the NHTs and their settings. The NTMC is managed as an avoidance

zone for most of its length; this is less restrictive than the exclusion area under Alternative B.

Avoidance criteria would limit this adverse impact to some extent, but would not be as beneficial

as management under Alternative B. Alternative D provides substantially more protections than

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural and

Historic Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1115

alternatives A and C and therefore would have far fewer adverse impacts to the NHTs and their

settings and related values.

Alternative D restricts high-profile/highly visible projects such as wind-energy development,

power and gas plants, and large ROWs to a much greater extent than alternatives A and C, but

less than Alternative B. Through VRM, Alternative D allows at most a weak visual contrast

outside of the NTMC for these projects, while Alternative B prohibits these projects out to 20

miles from the trails unless they could not be seen. Alternatives A and C extend protection to

1⁄4 mile on either side of trails. Therefore, Alternative D would result in much more beneficial

impacts than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B (although the degree of adverse

impacts would be identified through site-specific analysis). The most highly visible ROW projects

anticipated along the NHTs are wind-energy developments and associated large transmission

lines, due to high wind-energy potential in the area.

Alternatives A, C, and D manage range developments and minor realty actions essentially the

same and less restrictively than Alternative B. Range improvement projects and minor realty

actions are subject to visual resource conformance along the trails under Alternative D, while

Alternative B prohibits range improvement projects within 3 miles and minor realty actions

within 5 miles on either side of trails. Therefore, beneficial impacts under Alternative B would

be much greater than under alternatives A, C, and D. However, expected adverse impacts from

these types of projects are usually not major.

Alternative D allows fewer ROW crossings of the trails than alternatives A and C, but more than

Alternative B. Crossings are in four designated corridors under Alternative D; Alternative B

includes one designated crossing. Conversely, alternatives A and C allow proposed crossings to

be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. All alternatives include restrictions on crossing widths, but

Alternative B is most restrictive. Beneficial impacts to trails would be highest under Alternative

B, almost as high as Alternative B under Alternative D, and lowest under alternatives A and C.

Alternative D, like Alternative C, designates a corridor crossing the NHTs at Bison Basin Road.

The existing disturbance adversely impacts the NHTs setting. However, this impact is somewhat

reduced because the road is low profile and somewhat “meandering” rather than very straight and

thus presents less of a contrast. New ROWs are limited to underground uses that are within the

road ROW. While this will limit the adverse impacts, the new disturbance will create a contrast

that adversely impacts what is otherwise a pristine and remote setting. Bison Basin Road adjoins

the recreation management area of the NHTs identified for solitary recreation and primitive back

country experience; additional disturbance in this area would adversely impact that experience.

The extent to which aggressive reclamation could result in quicker revegetation would help to

limit the adverse impacts, but reclamation in this area is slow because of poor soils and low

precipitation so even when the soil has been stabilized, buried pipelines are visible for many

years if not decades. Therefore, pipelines would need to follow the existing line of the roads to

limit the contrast as much as possible.

4.7.1.3.5.4. Special Designations

Special designations in the NTMC provide additional protections for the nature and purposes

of the NHTs. There are five WSAs in or adjoining the NTMC. The protections afforded by the

WSA management would further protect the setting and recreational use of the NTMC. Similarly,

the management associated with the one eligible and suitable WSR through Sweetwater Canyon

support and provide additional beneficial impacts to the NTMC values. The only ACEC to

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Cultural

and Historic Resources
1116 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

overlap the NTMC is the South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC, but the Green Mountain ACEC

and the Beaver Rim ACEC are nearby. The VRM of the ACECs would beneficially impact the

NTMC values. WSAs, WSRs, and ACECs limit surface disturbances in various ways through

limitations on mineral development, realty actions, and other land uses to benefit the identified

resource values in the area. Under Alternative D, managing the Congressionally Designated

Trails as the NTMC protects 481,557 acres of trail remains and their historic settings, trail-related

recreation, and important wildlife habitat, including mule deer winter and crucial winter range,

from disturbance. Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts than Alternative A

because it protects 391,539 more acres but less than Alternative B.

Managing the lands around the Congressionally Designated Trails in a cohesive and synergistic

way would promote public interest by making the overall management more understandable

and predictable and allowing the BLM to process land use applications more efficiently and

consistently. In this regard, alternatives B and D would be more beneficial than alternatives

A and C.

Other special designations, including WSAs and the South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC,

beneficially impact Congressionally Designated Trails’ values in approximately the same way as

Alternative B.

4.7.2. Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and Visual

Resources

4.7.2.1. Summary of Impacts

This section focuses specifically on analyzing impacts to recreation and visual resources in

Congressionally Designated Trails landscapes. This includes the foreground/middleground zone,

which is 0 to 5 miles, and the background zone, which is 5 to 15 miles in any direction from an

NHT or the CDNST.

Trends in recreation setting and activity opportunities and the impacts thereto along

Congressionally Designated Trails under various BLM management actions mirror those

identified in Table 4.32, “Impacts to Recreation Setting by Alternative” (p. 1088) in the

Recreation section.

BLM management actions under other programs limit the BLM's ability to accommodate visitor

demand for beneficial outcomes. For example, accommodating visitor demand for specific

beneficial outcomes would be almost impossible in an area targeted for heavy energy development.

Conversely, SRMA management objectives focus specifically on beneficial outcomes for visitors.

Therefore, the beneficial recreation outcomes targeted under each alternative serve as anticipated

beneficial impacts. Table 4.39, “Congressionally Designated Trail Recreation Areas Managed

for Beneficial Outcomes” (p. 1117) lists the acres of recreation-specific beneficial outcomes

and the sectors where benefits would be anticipated as a result of SRMA management for

Congressionally Designated Trails.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and

Visual Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1117

Table 4.39. Congressionally Designated Trail Recreation Areas Managed for Beneficial

Outcomes

Acres by Alternative Managed for Beneficial Outcomes

Recreation Area (Priority Activities)

Beneficial

Outcomes to:

Alternative A

Alternative

B

Alternative C Alternative D

NHTs Group Use Area

(Cultural site visitation, learning

cultural heritage, teaching cultural

heritage, photography, and historic

reenactment)

Individuals,

communities, and the

environment

0 37,233 0 Same as

Alternative B

NHTs Auto Tour Route

(Cultural site visitation, learning

cultural heritage, teaching cultural

heritage, photography, driving

for pleasure)

Individuals,

communities, the environment, and

economies

0 25,098 0 Same as

Alternative B

Congressionally Designated Trails

Undeveloped Recreation Area

(Cultural site visitation, driving for

pleasure, photography, horseback

riding, hiking/backpacking, hunting)

Individuals,

communities, and the

environment

0 95,711 0 92,598

Alkali Basin of the CDNST

(Horseback riding/packing,

hiking/backpacking, mountain

biking, hunting)

Individuals, Communities,

the Environment, and

Economies

0 37,384 0 Same as

Alternative B

Sweetwater Historic Mining

Area of the CDNST

(Cultural site visitation, driving for

pleasure, photography, horseback

riding/packing, develop site camping,

hiking/backpacking, mountain biking)

Individuals,

the environment, and

economies

0 45,394 0 Same as

Alternative B

CDNST Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

NHT National Historic Trail

As discussed in the Visual Resources section of this chapter, VRM Classes establish a measurable

standard for the amount of change allowed to the visual character of a specific area. See the

Visual Resources section for VRM Class definitions. Table 4.40, “VRM Classes as Percent of

Congressionally Designated Trails Landscape ” (p. 1117) compares acres of VRM Classes in

Congressionally Designated Trails corridors under each alternative. The VRM Classes represent

the allowable levels of impacts to visual resources.

Table 4.40. VRM Classes as Percent of Congressionally Designated Trails Landscape

Class Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Class I 3 3 3 3

Class II 12 91 (+79) 2 (-10) 44 (+32)

Class III 10 3 (-7) 50 (+40) 49 (+39)

Class IV 75 3 (-72) 45 (-30) 4 (-71)

Source: BLM 2012a

Note: The numbers in parenthesis represent the percent increase or decrease, compared to Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation

and Visual Resources
1118 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.2.2. Methods and Assumptions

The recreation and visual resources analysis for Congressionally Designated Trails evaluates the

level of impacts to the landscape (15 miles either side of the trail) and physical trail resource.

This analysis used all methods listed in the Recreation and Visual Resources sections. The entire

Congressionally Designated Trails landscape is considered an important recreation feature in the

planning area. The Congressionally Designated Trails areas listed in Table 4.39, “Congressionally

Designated Trail Recreation Areas Managed for Beneficial Outcomes” (p. 1117) represent

portions of the trails with access and important visitor services that increase visitor focus in the

area. This section refers to those visitor focused trail areas.

This analysis used the following assumptions:

● Absent decisions on allowable use along trails and associated landscapes, future actions

and authorizations will continue to conflict with the enabling legislation and supporting

documentation of the CDNST.

● The direction in the enabling legislation and supporting documentation will be better achieved

through complementary allowable use decisions (e.g., NSO).

● Alternatives that protect a larger landscape around trails will better achieve the direction in the

enabling legislation and supporting documentation associated with the CDNST.

4.7.2.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.7.2.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

See Impacts Common to All Alternatives in the Recreation and Visual Resources sections.

4.7.2.3.2. Alternative A

4.7.2.3.2.1. Program Management

Program management under this alternative does not focus on identified customer demand

for recreation settings, activities, and/or outcomes in the Congressionally Designated Trails

landscapes. Under Alternative A, visitor services are a function of actions to protect resources,

mitigate use and user conflicts, and protect human health and safety. That is, visitor services

under this alternative focus on accommodating priorities of other BLM programs rather than of

accommodating visitor demand for beneficial outcomes.

Alternative A program management protects several existing developed recreation sites, but does

not include allowable use decisions to protect important recreation areas. Protections under this

alternative would maintain existing investments and physical trail remains, but the alternative

does not include future development of new recreation sites or maintenance/enhancement of

important areas. Program management under this alternative would not sustain or enhance the

recreation settings of visitor focused trail areas. Therefore, Alternative A recreation management

in Congressionally Designated Trails corridors would not meet specific visitor demands for

recreational opportunities (activities and outcomes).

Alternative A program management would result in long-term adverse impacts to visual

resources along Congressionally Designated Trails because almost 85 percent of trails landscapes

will be managed for the lowest level of scenic quality protection. This alternative allows

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and

Visual Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1119

surface-disturbing activities on almost 85 percent of trails landscapes, activities that can create

a moderate to strong visual contrast. In addition, the remaining 12 percent of trails landscapes

in VRM Class II corresponds to a 1⁄4-mile buffer either side of NHTs. There would be impacts

to visual resources outside this 1⁄4-mile buffer, which would create contrast at the Class III and

IV levels. Therefore, the Class II designation would not be effective for maintaining the visual

resources associated with Congressionally Designated Trails.

4.7.2.3.2.2. Resources

General impacts to the recreation environment and visual resources in Congressionally Designated

Trails corridors from other BLM resource management actions would be similar to impacts

discussed in the Recreation and Visual Resources sections. Specific impacts from resource

management actions within ACECs are discussed below.

4.7.2.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Impacts from foreseeable resource use development in the trails landscapes under Alternative

A include:

● There would be impacts from oil and gas exploration and development in the Crooks

Gap/Bairoil portion of the CDNST landscape. Alternative A allows activities associated

with this development on and along the CDNST and allows wildcat oil and gas exploration

across the entire landscape.

● Wind-energy development would constantly be within view of the CDNST and NHTs.

Development will occur within close proximity (within 1⁄4 mile) of Congressionally

Designated Trails.

● Alternative A limits ROW crossings of NHTs; however, the alternative allows ROW crossings

of the CDNST. Alternative A allows ROWs within view of trails and would introduce strong

levels of contrast.

● Alternative A allows phosphate development within and across the NHT landscape and within

the Group Use and National Trails Undeveloped recreation areas.

● Alternative A allows mineral materials disposals throughout almost all the landscape.

● Alternative A allows actions under the 1872 General Mining Law within 1⁄4 mile either

side of Congressionally Designated Trails with Plans of Operation, and allows unrestricted

actions everywhere else.

● The impacts of uranium mining under Alternative A would be evident from the CDNST

and NHTs.

As a result of the activities listed above, the CDNST and NHT landscape would experience

increased road densities (decreased remoteness), decreased naturalness, increases in facilities and

structures, and increases in contacts with other users. These factors would cause the CDNST and

NHT landscape to trend toward urban/industrial.

Visual disturbances as a result of these activities would result in strong contrast as viewed from

both trails across the entire landscape. There would be impacts to visual resources in the sensitive

foreground/middleground zone (0 to 5 miles) and the background zone (5 to 15 miles). All of

the above actions would introduce man-made elements to a landscape that currently has very

few visual intrusions. Mitigation actions would be minimally successful because Alternative A

designates most of the trails landscapes as VRM Class IV, an allocation that does not provide for a

justification for elaborate mitigation measures. In addition, several activities Alternative A allows

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation

and Visual Resources
1120 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

in NHT corridors would be very large (e.g., wind-energy development) and out of scale with

NHT landscapes. Such activities would not lend themselves to standard VRM mitigation (e.g.,

color or relocating the project). As a result of resource use activities Alternative A allow NHT

landscapes, the entire area would move away from current visual quality levels and demonstrate

VRM Class IV characteristics. The NHT landscapes would be subject to management actions

that introduce major modifications to the existing character of the landscape. The level of change

to the characteristic landscape would be high under Alternative A. Developments and activities

under Alternative A would dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention.

4.7.2.3.2.4. Special Designations

See Program Management above for a discussion of special designations regarding trails

management. Special designations in the NHT landscapes include the South Pass ACEC,

the Sweetwater Canyon WSA, and the Sweetwater Rocks WSA. These designations provide

protections in the NHT landscapes and limit the activities described above. However, under

Alternative A these areas are isolated, which would result in “island polygons” of protections in

the NHT landscapes.

4.7.2.3.3. Alternative B

4.7.2.3.3.1. Program Management

Program management under Alternative B is responsive to customer demands in the

Congressionally Designated Trails landscapes. Alternative B includes more (than Alternative

A) visitor services in visitor focused trail areas and provides allowable use decisions that ensure

the future recreational enjoyment of these areas. Alternative B manages five visitor focused

trail areas (totaling 240,820 acres) as SRMAs. In SRMAs, the recreation setting is managed to

meet visitor demands for specific activities, experiences, and benefits. Within these important

areas, allowable uses (limits on other BLM programs) and management actions are specifically

developed to sustain and/or enhance the entire recreation setting. Under Alternative B, the

following visitor focused trail areas are in SRMAs to meet specific visitor demands: NHTs

Auto Tour Route, NHTs Group Use Area, National Trails Undeveloped area (contains both

NHTs and the CDNST), the Alkali Basin of the CDNST, and the Sweetwater Historic Mining

Area of the CDNST. Alternative B also manages the remainder of NHT resources (not in a

SRMA) in a manner that meets less specific/more diverse visitor demands in concert with other

program (cultural resources) objectives. Alternative B manages the remaining portions of the

physical trails and 1⁄4 mile either side of the trails as distinct ERMAs. Distinct ERMAs represent

areas where management focuses on providing a diversity of recreation opportunities, within the

confines of both recreation and non-recreation program objectives. In distinct ERMAs, allowable

uses and management actions address recreation/tourism issues, activities, conflicts, and/or single

important attributes (such as remoteness) of the area. This focus on harmonizing visitor services,

diversity of recreation opportunities, and other program priorities constitutes an increased level

of visitor services over Alternative A. Alternative B manages the remainder of the important

recreation area as distinct ERMAs, including: the CDNST in the Crooks Gap and Bairoil areas,

the Willow Creek portion of the NHT, and the NHT through mixed private and public lands from

Ice Slough east to the planning area boundary.

Program management under Alternative B protects more existing developed recreation sites than

Alternative A. Additionally, the alternative protects future developed sites, investments, and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and

Visual Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1121

physical trail resources. The alternative applies allowable use decisions to protect more important

recreation areas than Alternative A.

Alternative B VRM provides long-term protection for 94 percent of the NHT landscapes. This

protection would be achieved through a VRM Class II designation. This is a 79 percent increase

in the amount of VRM Class II designations over Alternative A. Alternative B allocates the

remainder of the landscape as VRM Classes III and IV, which coincides with existing disturbances

in the landscape; therefore, these designations would result in little to no change to the existing

landscape. Alternative B VRM would maintain the existing visual quality of the entire NHT

landscape.

4.7.2.3.3.2. Resources

General impacts to the recreation environment and visual resources of Congressionally

Designated Trails landscapes from resources management actions under Alternative B would be

similar to impacts described in the Recreation and Visual Resources sections of this chapter.

4.7.2.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Because Alternative B program management protects the entire Congressionally Designated

Trails landscape, there would be no impacts to the recreation environment and visual resources of

trail landscapes beyond those described above under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

4.7.2.3.3.4. Special Designations

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B includes more NHTs landscape in special designations.

This alternative expands the South Pass, Green Mountain, and NHT ACECs. Additionally,

this alternative designates the Granite Mountain and Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater

Sage-Grouse ACECs. The recreation environmental and visual resources of the NHT landscapes

would benefit from these additional ACECs because they would result in restrictions on

development beyond those described above under Program Management. While Alternative B

program management limits surface-disturbing activities within view of NHTs, the ACECs

limit surface-disturbing activities subject to exceptions for other resource values (wildlife,

visual resources, other non-trail historic resources). This means that areas of overlap between

these designations and the NHT landscapes would be subject to multiple stipulations on

surface-disturbing activities, further limiting the potential for change to the NHT landscapes.

The synergy between program management and management of these ACECs would ensure

maintenance of the entire trail landscape.

4.7.2.3.4. Alternative C

4.7.2.3.4.1. Program Management

Recreation program management under Alternative C would result in impacts the same as

Alternative A, except that Alternative C provides for a 1⁄4-mile corridor either side of the CDNST.

This buffer would increase protection of the physical trail of the CDNST. Alternative C impacts to

NHT landscapes would be the same as impacts under Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation

and Visual Resources
1122 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.2.3.4.2. Resources

Alternative C impacts to the recreation environment and visual resources of Congressionally

Designated Trails as a result of resource actions would be the same as impacts under Alternative A.

4.7.2.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C impacts from resource uses would be similar to impacts under Alternative A.

However, Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to NHT landscapes because it does

not include the existing South Pass and NHT ACECs. This alternative does not designate ACECs

in the planning area, which would subject the trails themselves to more impacts than Alternative

A. Specifically, Alternative C does not require Plans of Operation for exploration disturbing fewer

than 5 acres or for casual use or notice-level operations. This could result in damage to the NHTs

themselves. In addition, because Alternative C does not designate the South Pass ACEC, resource

uses in this area of the trails landscape would result in more adverse impacts than Alternative A.

Designation of the South Pass ACEC under alternatives A and B would protect the area from the

impacts of oil and gas, ROW, and wind-energy development. Alternative C impacts in the South

Pass portion of the NHT would be the same as resource use impacts under Alternative A.

4.7.2.3.4.4. Special Designations

The only special designations under Alternative C are the existing WSAs. Impacts from WSAs

would not differ by alternative and are detailed under Alternative A. See Resource Uses above for

a discussion regarding the impacts of no special designations.

4.7.2.3.5. Alternative D

4.7.2.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D recreation program management is the same as management under Alternative B.

Alternative D VRM would provide long-term protection for 47 percent of the NHT landscapes.

This protection would be achieved through VRM Class I (3 percent) and II (44 percent) allocation.

Alternative D designates the remainder of the landscape as VRM Class III and IV, which coincides

with existing disturbances in the landscape, areas beyond 5 miles of the trail, and/or areas out of

view of the trail. These designations would result in little to no change in the existing landscape.

Alternative D VRM would maintain the existing visual quality of the entire trails landscape.

4.7.2.3.5.2. Resources

General impacts to the recreation environment and visual resources of Congressionally

Designated Trails landscapes from resources management actions under Alternative D would be

similar to impacts described in the Recreation and Visual Resources sections of this chapter.

4.7.2.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Because Alternative D program management protects the entire Congressionally Designated

Trails landscape, there would be no impacts to the recreation environment and visual resources of

trail landscapes beyond those described above under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Congressionally Designated Trails – Recreation and

Visual Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1123

4.7.2.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative D impacts, as a result of special designations, would be the same as impacts under

Alternative B.

4.7.3. Wilderness Study Areas

4.7.3.1. Summary of Impacts

All alternatives meet the statutory requirement to ensure the protection of designated WSAs so as

not to preclude the ability of Congress to designate these areas as Wilderness Areas. Compared

to alternatives A, C, and D, Alternative B management provides for enhanced wilderness

characteristics and experiences.

4.7.3.2. Methods and Assumptions

This analysis considers impacts to wilderness characteristics of naturalness, opportunities for

solitude, primitive/unconfined recreation, and special features. Impacts are limited to potential

changes in wilderness characteristics for the WSAs. Impacts to WSAs are considered adverse

if management actions “impair the suitability of WSAs for preservation as wilderness.” See

the Recreation and Visual Resources sections for impacts that would result from management

actions adjacent to WSA boundaries.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Management of WSAs will follow BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study

Areas.

● Congress will not take action on planning area WSAs within the 20 year planning horizon.

● Impacts outside WSAs will not affect wilderness characteristics but are analyzed as impacts to

recreation.

● Increased efforts to reduce motorized and mechanized travel will benefit wilderness visitors

and the physical attributes of wilderness areas.

● Johnson et al. (Johnson et al. 1997) found the following livestock related factors to strongly

detract from the wilderness experience: encounters in or near dispersed camps, encounters in

riparian-wetland areas, encounters in meadows, manure on trails, tracks in riparian-wetland

areas, and odors.

4.7.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.7.3.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

There are several impacts that would not vary by alternative. Managing wildfire in WSAs by using

conditional fire suppression would allow fire to play its natural role in the ecosystem, which would

result in short-term adverse impacts to the naturalness and opportunity for primitive/unconfined

recreation. However, in the long term such actions would result in protections to wilderness

values. Continuing to manage the eight existing WSAs under BLM Manual 6330, Management of

Wilderness Study Areas would protect the wilderness characteristics related to naturalness, and

prevent impacts to the opportunity for solitude and primitive/unconfined recreation from most

program activities. All alternatives require WSA management to follow BLM Manual 6330,

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wilderness Study Areas
1124 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Management of Wilderness Study Areas; therefore, most programs would not impact wilderness

characteristics in a way that would preclude the ability of Congress to designate the area as

wilderness. Recreation and travel management actions for WSAs specifically related to livestock

grazing do vary by alternative and would result in different impacts to wilderness characteristics.

Impacts to the WSAs from activities occurring outside the boundary of the WSAs are analyzed in

the Recreation and Visual Resources sections as well as in Special Designation sections where

appropriate.

4.7.3.3.2. Alternative A

4.7.3.3.2.1. Program Management

Closing the Dubois Badlands WSAs to OHV use would protect the wilderness characteristics in

these areas by restricting activities that affect opportunities for solitude and primitive/unconfined

recreation. Managing OHV use in the remaining seven WSAs as limited to designated roads

and trails would provide some protection to the wilderness characteristics and mitigate impacts

associated with OHV use. However, there could still be impacts in these areas from continuing

proliferation of new user-created routes due to limited enforcement and implementation

capabilities. The proliferation of unauthorized routes and general use of motorized vehicles in

WSAs degrades the solitude, naturalness, and opportunities for primitive/unconfined recreation.

Allowing over-snow vehicle use would result in short-term, temporary impacts to wilderness

characteristics.

4.7.3.3.2.2. Resources

No impacts from resource management actions are anticipated from Alternative A.

4.7.3.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A recreation management does not include specific measures to manage livestock

grazing in WSAs. Therefore, livestock management would follow the requirements in BLM

Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas. Most of the WSAs are undesirable (e.g.,

too far from water) and/or unavailable (e.g., too steep or rocky) for livestock. The Sweetwater

Canyon WSA is the exception because the major visitor focus in the area, the river, also is the

major focus for livestock grazing. Alternative A allows livestock grazing to continue at the

current rate authorized for the area. This would result in livestock grazing related impact to

wilderness experiences stemming from encounters in or near dispersed camps, encounters in

riparian-wetland areas, encounters in meadows, manure on trails, tracks in riparian-wetland

areas, and odors (Johnson et al. 1997).

4.7.3.3.2.4. Special Designations

See Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wilderness Study Areas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1125

4.7.3.3.3. Alternative B

4.7.3.3.3.1. Program Management

Closing all eight WSAs to motorized (including over-snow vehicles) and mechanized vehicle use

would protect the wilderness characteristics in these areas by restricting activities that impact

opportunities for solitude and primitive/unconfined recreation. Alternative B would result in less

route proliferation than Alternative A because the ease of enforcement and implementation of

closures versus route-by-route decision making. This management action would enhance solitude,

naturalness, and opportunities for primitive/unconfined recreation in all WSAs.

4.7.3.3.3.2. Resources

No impacts from resource management actions are anticipated from Alternative B.

4.7.3.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B recreation management actions close the fenced portion of Sweetwater Canyon

WSA to livestock grazing. In all other WSAs, Alternative B management of livestock grazing

will follow the requirements in BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas.

Livestock grazing may impact wilderness experiences in all WSAs not closed to livestock

grazing. However, most of the WSAs are undesirable (e.g., too far from water) and/or unavailable

(e.g., too steep or rocky) for livestock. The Sweetwater Canyon WSA is the exception because the

major visitor focus in the area, the river, also is the major focus for livestock grazing. Alternative

B closes the Sweetwater Canyon WSA to livestock grazing. Closing the area to livestock grazing

would enhance all wilderness characteristics and would eliminate encounters with livestock that

would adversely impact visitor experiences.

4.7.3.3.3.4. Special Designations

See Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

4.7.3.3.4. Alternative C

4.7.3.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C management for WSAs is the same as Alternative A. Therefore impacts to WSAs

under Alternative C would be the same as Alternative A.

4.7.3.3.4.2. Resources

Same as Alternative A.

4.7.3.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wilderness Study Areas
1126 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.3.3.4.4. Special Designations

No impacts from special designation actions are anticipated from Alternative C.

4.7.3.3.5. Alternative D

4.7.3.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D management for WSAs is the same as Alternative A, with the exception that

Alternative D closes the Copper Mountain and Whiskey Mountain WSAs to motorized vehicles.

These areas do not have existing roads; therefore, this management would not change the WSAs.

Instead it would, however, increase enforcement capabilities in these areas.

The mapping of prescriptions associated with the WSAs and the limits on resource uses such as

mineral management have been clarified. The mapping for alternatives A through C generally

referenced BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas without specifying the

management approach. The identification of how management is implemented (closed to oil

and gas leasing) is not different management; but merely a clearer display of the management.

As indicated, the limitations on motorized vehicle use in the Copper Mountain and Whiskey

Mountain WSAs represents a clarification of management to improve enforcement.

4.7.3.3.5.2. Resources

See Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

4.7.3.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Impacts to WSAs as a result of livestock grazing would be the same under Alternative D as

Alternative A.

4.7.3.3.5.4. Special Designations

See Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

4.7.4. Wild and Scenic Rivers

4.7.4.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternative B provides for the highest level of beneficial impact to identified waterways with

very similar beneficial impacts resulting from the management detailed in Alternative D. The

major difference between alternatives B and D is that Alternative B recommends all eligible

waterways as suitable whereas Alternative D recommends only those three waterways found to

meet suitability requirements. The management and allowable uses identified for these areas in

alternatives B and D is nearly identical and therefore impacts from resources and resource uses is

expected to be similar.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild and Scenic Rivers February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1127

Alternative A provides limited direction for management of waterways, therefore it is anticipated

that this alternative will have some beneficial impacts as detailed above, and some adverse

impacts as detailed below.

Alternative C allows for the highest level of adverse impacts to waterways. The alternative does

not recommend any eligible waterway as suitable, and also removes the majority of protections

that currently overlap these waterways. Alternative C would eventually result in nearly all

waterways no longer being eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS.

4.7.4.2. Methods and Assumptions

This section describes impacts to NWSRS-eligible waterway segments from management actions

associated with the alternatives. Analysis of impacts to these segments is limited to a corridor 1⁄4

mile on each side of the waterway. The indicators for this impact analysis are:

● The values or the free-flowing nature of the eligible waterways.

● Level of change to the tentative classification of eligible waterways.

● Level of change to waterway eligibility or suitability for inclusion in the NWSRS.

Table 4.41, “Waterways Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River

System” (p. 1127) lists the waterways found to be eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS, the ORVs

along the waterways, the tentative classification of each eligible waterway, and the interim (subject

to public input, EIS, and decision record for this RMP) evaluation of suitability for the waterway.

Table 4.41. Waterways Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System

Eligible Waterway Outstanding Remarkable

Values

Tentative Classification

Interim Evaluation of

Suitability Factors

Baldwin Creek Unit Scenic, Recreational,

Wildlife Values

Wild Suitable

Ice Slough Historic Values Recreational Not Suitable

Little Popo Agie River Scenic, Recreation, and

Cultural Values

Wild Not Suitable

North Popo Agie River Scenic, Recreation, and

Cultural Values

Wild Not Suitable

Rock Creek Historic Values Scenic Not Suitable

Sweetwater River Unit Scenic, Recreational,

Historical, and Ecological

Values

Wild Suitable

Warm Springs Creek Geological and Historical

Values

Recreational and Scenic

(two segments)

Segment 1 Suitable,

Segment 2 Not Suitable

Willow Creek Recreational and Historical

Values

Scenic Not Suitable

Wind River Scenic and Geological Values Scenic Not Suitable

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Recommending an area as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS will result in the greatest

benefit to the eligible waterways, whereas not considering suitability and maintaining

eligibility will moderately benefit the waterways.

● Recommending an area as not suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS and not developing

management actions to maintain eligibility and suitability will result in varying levels of

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild and Scenic Rivers
1128 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

impacts to the waterway. Impacts will vary based on the level of protections instituted by

other programs that correspond with WSR values (e.g., cultural, recreation, visual, and

wildlife resources management).

● VRM Class I or II will enhance waterways; Classes III and IV will degrade waterways.

● VRM Class I or II designations adjacent to waterways boundaries will enhance WSR values;

Classes III and IV within view of the waterways (but outside of the boundary) will allow for

changes to the visual environment that will impact WSR values.

● Actions that benefit primitive recreation also will benefit waterways tentatively classified as

Wild.

● Limited (e.g., designated roads and trails, seasonally, and existing roads and trails) travel

management decisions will not impact WSR values. Motorized vehicle closures will enhance

waterways tentatively classified as Wild.

● Management actions and allowable use decisions that benefit or protect WSR values will

benefit eligibility and suitability.

● Additional administrative designations such as WSAs and ACECs will benefit identified

waterways, specifically in cases where the designation provides additional protections (to

corresponding values) inside and outside the WSR corridor.

4.7.4.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.7.4.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The free-flowing character of eligible waterways will be protected to the extent that modifications

such as stream impoundments, channelization, and/or rip-rapping will not be permitted along

BLM shorelines. However, depending on the alternative, values could be at risk from potential

minerals development, OHV activity, or other surface-disturbing activities. Also, the protection

is limited because there are no federal reserved water rights established for in-stream flow

purposes due to eligibility and suitability determinations. In addition, in cases where there is not

a federal nexus, the BLM has no control over potential modifications of the shoreline or other

development (including development related to the perfection of water rights). Because of these

factors, protective management of eligible/suitable waterways will not affect existing water

compacts. BLM management authority extends only to public lands in the river corridor, and

there are no water rights associated with suitability determinations. A suitability determination

also has no impact on existing water compacts.

Standard protective management of cultural/historic resources will maintain these values, but

alone, will not provide sufficient management to maintain or enhance tentative classifications

associated with NWSRS-eligible waterways. Actions that protect settings associated with

cultural/historic resources vary by alternative and can result in maintenance/enhancement of

values. Standard protective buffers for riparian-wetland areas will ensure protection of all eligible

waterways from surface-disturbing activities. However, the corridors associated with WSRs are

larger than the standard protective corridor. Therefore, portions of WSR management corridors

would experience different impacts across alternatives. In addition, impacts outside the WSR

corridor but within view would also vary by alternative.

The Ice Slough waterway has acreage leased for oil and gas under stipulations developed in

the 1987 RMP. These oil and gas leases will remain valid until they expire in 2015. Currently,

the Ice Slough area has a NSO stipulation to protect NHT resources and a CSU stipulation to

protect watersheds. These existing stipulations would provide adequate protections from oil and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild and Scenic Rivers February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1129

gas development for the eligible waterway and its ORVs, thus maintaining the area's tentative

classification as a recreational WSR.

4.7.4.3.2. Alternative A

4.7.4.3.2.1. Program Management

Program management under this alternative does not make suitability determinations for any

NWSRS-eligible waterway, including the Baldwin Creek, Warm Springs Segment 1, and the

Sweetwater River Unit. BLM-administered public lands in these areas are managed to maintain

the free-flowing nature, values, and tentative classifications of the waterways. Because the

eligible river corridors will be subject to the existing land use plan as far as resource allocations

are concerned, they could be adversely impacted on a case-by-case basis. These would be

addressed through the site-specific NEPA process, with mitigation applied if appropriate. If

any proposed action is found to affect the eligibility of the waterway, it is BLM policy to deny

the action until suitability can be determined.

Alternative A does not make suitability determinations, designate a management corridor, or

establish allowable use decisions for eligible waterways. This would result in several of the

waterways and the 1⁄4 mile corridor on either side being bisected by contrasting management

stipulations (such as portions excluded, avoided, or open to ROWs). In these cases, portions of

the waterway or corridor would be subjected to management inconsistencies that could change

the areas' ORVs.

4.7.4.3.2.2. Resources

NWSRS-eligible waterways not in an ACEC include Rock Creek and Warm Springs Creek. To

protect historic values associated with these sites, the cultural resource program prescribes several

stipulations that would benefit the eligible waterway. These stipulations include limitations

on surface-disturbing activities to protect important cultural resources. In addition, standard

riparian-wetland stipulations also protect a large portion of these areas. As a result of these

management prescriptions, little change to the Rock Creek and Warm Springs Creek waterways

and associated corridors would be expected under this Alternative A. See below for additional

resource protection measures associated with special designations that would benefit eligible

waterways.

As a result of VRM Class I and II designations, the visual environment associated with Baldwin

Creek Unit, Little Popo Agie, North Popo Agie, Sweetwater River Unit, and Wind River would

remain unchanged. Conversely, VRM Classes III and IV allocations under Alternative A would

result in adverse impacts to portions of the Willow Creek, Rock Creek, and Warm Springs

NWSRS-eligible waterways.

4.7.4.3.2.3. Resource Uses

Table 4.42, “Impacts to Eligible WSRs under Alternative A from Resource Uses” (p. 1130) lists

the impacts to NWSRS-eligible waterways anticipated as a result of resource uses allowed under

Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild and Scenic Rivers
1130 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 4.42. Impacts to Eligible WSRs under Alternative A from Resource Uses

Eligible Wild and

Scenic Rivers

Projected Impact From Resource Uses

Baldwin Creek

Little Popo Agie

North Fork Popo Agie

Impacts from phosphate development would be within and in view of corridors.

Additionally, motorized vehicle use in the bottom of Baldwin Creek would continue to

degrade the wild character of this area. These impacts would eliminate values associated

with these units and eventually cause the area to no longer be an eligible waterway.

Rock Creek

Wind River

Willow Creek

Wind-energy development would be within view of this waterway and degrade scenic

values. These impacts can be mitigated and would not result in an eligibility change to

this waterway.

Warm Springs Resource uses projected to occur within this eligible waterway include wildcat oil and gas

exploration and phosphate development. In addition, wind-energy development would

occur within view of the corridor. Impacts from these uses would degrade the waterway's

geological and historical values. Due to the longevity of the impacts associated with these

uses, it is anticipated that mitigation measures to offset degradation of values would be

minimally successful. These uses and associated impacts would cause the area to no

longer be an eligible waterway.

WSR Wild and Scenic River

4.7.4.3.2.4. Special Designations

Table 4.43, “Impacts to Eligible WSRs from Other Special Designation Management” (p. 1131) lists the NWSRS-eligible waterways encompassed by other special designations

and the associated management that would protect WSR values.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild and Scenic Rivers February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1131

Table 4.43. Impacts to Eligible WSRs from Other Special Designation Management

Eligible Wild and

Scenic River

Special

Designation

Protective Management Associated with Special Designation

that will benefit Wild and Scenic Rivers

Baldwin Creek Unit

North Popo Agie

Lander Slope

ACEC

Designated ACEC to protect scenic and wildlife values. Specific

prescriptions that would protect values and tentative classifications

include NSO to oil and gas; requirement for Plans of Operation for

activities under the 1872 General Mining Law; VRM Class II; closure

to mineral materials disposals; closure to phosphate mining as a result

of management actions to protect water; excluded from wind-energy

development and other ROWs; and closed to geothermal exploration.

Little Popo Agie Red Canyon

ACEC

Designated ACEC to protect scenic and wildlife values. Specific

prescriptions that would limit surface-disturbing activities and protect

values and tentative classifications include NSO to oil and gas;

requirement for Plans of Operation for activities under the 1872 General

Mining Law; VRM Class II; closure to mineral materials disposals;

closure to phosphate and other leasable mineral materials mining;

excluded from wind-energy development and other ROWs; major

constraints and closed to geothermal exploration.

Ice Slough National

Historic Trail

ACEC

Designated ACEC to protect historic values. Specific prescriptions

that would limit surface-disturbing activities and protect outstanding

remarkable values and tentative classifications include NSO to oil

and gas; requirement for Plans of Operation for activities under the

1872 General Mining Law; VRM Class II; closure to mineral materials

disposals; closure to phosphate and other leasable mineral materials

mining; excluded from wind-energy development and other ROWs;

major constraints and closed to geothermal exploration.

Willow Creek South Pass

ACEC

Designated ACEC to protect historic values. Specific prescriptions

that would limit surface-disturbing activities and protect outstanding

remarkable values and tentative classifications include NSO to oil

and gas; requirement for Plans of Operation for activities under the

1872 General Mining Law; VRM Class II; closure to mineral materials

disposals; closure to phosphate and other leasable mineral materials

mining; excluded from wind-energy development and other ROWs;

major constraints and closed to geothermal exploration.

Sweetwater River

Unit

Sweetwater

Canyon WSA

The entire unit is within the WSA boundaries. Managing the area under

BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas would

continue to maintain values and tentative wild classification.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

BLM Bureau of Land Management

NSO no surface occupancy

ROW right-of-way

VRM Visual Resource Management

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WSR Wild and Scenic River

4.7.4.3.3. Alternative B

4.7.4.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B manages all eligible waterways as suitable, and therefore manages 1⁄4 mile corridor

on either side of these waterways to maintain and enhance values and tentative classifications. If

any proposed action affects the eligibility and suitability of the river segment, it is BLM policy to

deny the action until suitability can be determined.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild and Scenic Rivers
1132 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

This alternative makes consistent decisions across WSR corridors and therefore would result

in no waterway corridors being bisected by contrasting management stipulations (conflicting

management occurs in nearly all NWSRS-eligible segments as a result of Alternative A). The

seamless management proposed under Alternative B would provide consistent protection of the

values associated with these corridors.

4.7.4.3.3.2. Resources

As a result of VRM Classes I and II designations, the visual environment in all eligible WSRs

would remain unchanged. Alternative B VRM also provides protections to the visual environment

both inside and outside all eligible WSR corridors. Alternative B VRM designations would

benefit and protect WSRs at a higher level than Alternative A. See below for additional resource

protection measures associated with special designations that would benefit WSRs.

4.7.4.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B closes or excludes most surface-disturbing activities in eligible WSR corridors,

which would provide maximum protection of values and tentative classifications. In addition, the

alternative closes the Baldwin Creek and Sweetwater River suitable units to motorized vehicles,

which would enhance the wild classifications of these systems. This alternative would result in

fewer impacts to eligible WSRs from resource uses than Alternative A.

4.7.4.3.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative B applies special designations management actions on a landscape scale. These

designations and associated management complement and protect all eligible and suitable WSR

values and tentative classifications. Therefore, Alternative B provides more protections and

benefits to WSRs than Alternative A.

4.7.4.3.4. Alternative C

4.7.4.3.4.1. Program Management

This alternative does not recommend any eligible waterways as suitable for inclusion in the

NWSRS and proposes standard management for these areas. Therefore, this alternative offers

fewer protections to identified waterways than Alternative A. Impacts to the eligible waterways

would be the higher under this alternative than those detailed in Alternative A.

4.7.4.3.4.2. Resources

Resource protections under this alternative will not exceed standard management. Impacts

Common to All Alternatives (above) describes impacts from standard management.

Under this alternative, most eligible waterways (except for those in WSAs, which remain VRM

Class I) are managed as VRM Classes III and IV. VRM Class III and IV designations under

Alternative C would allow more adverse impacts to visual resources along more NWSRS-eligible

waterways than Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild and Scenic Rivers February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1133

4.7.4.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Impacts from resource uses to the Ice Slough, Warm Springs, Sweetwater River Unit, and Wind

River waterway segments would be the same under this alternative as under Alternative A.

Removal of the Lander Slope ACEC and South Pass ACECs and associated management would

reduce (compared to Alternative A) protections for five of the nine NWSRS-eligible waterways.

Table 4.44, “Impacts to Eligible WSRs under Alternative C” (p. 1133) details impacts to these

five eligible waterways under Alternative C.

Table 4.44. Impacts to Eligible WSRs under Alternative C

Eligible Wild and

Scenic Rivers

Projected Impact From Resource Uses

Baldwin Creek

Little Popo Agie

North Fork Popo Agie

Impacts from phosphate mining, oil and gas development, and wind-energy development

would be within and in view of management corridors at higher rate under Alternative C

than under Alternative A. In addition, the open two-track road in the bottom of Baldwin

Creek would continue to degrade the wild character of this area. These impacts would

eliminate values associated with these units and eventually cause the area to no longer

be eligible as a WSR. This would occur at a faster rate and more drastic scale under this

Alternative C than under Alternative A.

Rock Creek

Willow Creek

Wind-energy development would be within the WSR corridor and in view of these

waterways at a higher rate then under Alternative A. Extensive wind-energy development

in this area would adversely impact the scenic value of the entire WSR and introduce a

level of development in the corridor that would eliminate values associated with the units,

and eventually cause the area to no longer be eligible as a WSR. Alternative C would

result in more impacts than Alternative A.

WSR Wild and Scenic River

4.7.4.3.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not have any administrative designations except for WSAs and a 1⁄4-mile

buffer on either side of Congressionally Designated Trails. Therefore, impacts from special

designations in the Ice Slough, Sweetwater River Unit, and Wind River would be the same as

under Alternative A

4.7.4.3.5. Alternative D

4.7.4.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D program management makes suitability determinations for the Baldwin Creek,

Warm Springs Segment 1, and Sweetwater River Units; the remainder of NWSRS-eligible

waterways will be dropped from further consideration for inclusion in the NWSRS. The alternative

establishes protective management for all waterways found to meet the suitability requirements.

This alternative ensures protection of values and maintenance of wild classifications. Eligible

waterway and the surrounding 1⁄4 mile corridors on either side are subject to other program

management, and therefore could be subject to case-by-case actions. These would be addressed

through the site-specific NEPA process, with mitigation applied if appropriate.

This alternative makes consistent decisions across waterway corridors, and therefore would

result in no waterways or corridors being bisected by contrasting management stipulations

(conflicting management occurs in nearly all waterway corridors under Alternative A). The

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Wild and Scenic Rivers
1134 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

seamless management proposed under Alternative D would provide consistent protections for the

values associated with WSR corridors reviewed during this planning process.

4.7.4.3.5.2. Resources

Alternative D impacts would be the same as Alternative B. Although Alternative D recommends

fewer waterways as suitable than Alternative B, the protections identified for the areas that are not

managed as eligible will maintain the values associated with all eligible waterways.

4.7.4.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D impacts to NWSRS-eligible waterway segments would be similar to Alternative

B. One difference between Alternative D management and Alternative B management is that

Alternative D allows motorized vehicle use in the Sweetwater River segment corridor through

Sweetwater Canyon on designated roads and trails. However, this management would not be

allowed to degrade the wild character of the river corridor; therefore, Alternative D impacts

would be less than alternatives A and C and more than Alternative B. Travel management

implementation will evaluate motorized use in Sweetwater Canyon.

4.7.4.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative D beneficial impacts from special designations would be the same as Alternative B,

including protections from locatable mineral entry by withdrawal to protect other resources.

4.7.5. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

This section describes impacts to the ACECs designated in the 1987 RMP and EIS ROD, proposed

expansions of those ACECs, and proposed new ACECs in the planning area (see Table 2.5,

“Comparative Summary of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by Alternative” (p. 50)),

as well as impacts if no ACECs are designated. ACECs are designated to provide special

management for relevant and important values, resources, natural systems, and natural hazards

(referred to herein as “values of concern”). The discussion of ACECs focuses on the values

of concern and potential impacts to those values from other programs. Many of the values of

concern in ACECs are also resources with management independent of ACEC designation; this

non-ACEC management is addressed under the relevant sections of this chapter. For example,

impacts to wildlife values of concern in the Whiskey Mountain ACEC are discussed below under

the ACEC, but overall impacts to wildlife from management under the alternatives appear in the

Biological Resources section. The analysis in this section focuses on relative comparisons among

alternatives of potential adverse and beneficial impacts in ACECs.

4.7.5.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternative C would have the most adverse impacts to values of concern because standard

management in the ACECs under this alternative would not prevent adverse impacts to those

values through mineral, realty, and other surface-disturbing activities. Alterative A has the next

most adverse impacts because while 119,622 acres are designated as ACECs, 1,373,368 acres

identified as relevant and important are not specially managed. Alternative D would have the

second fewest adverse impacts to values of concern, and Alternative B would result in the fewest

adverse impacts because it designates the most acres as ACECs.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1135

Alternative B would have the most beneficial impacts because all ACECs are proposed for

withdrawal from locatable mineral entry and closed to other mineral and realty actions.

Sage-grouse and other resource protections under Alternative B limit most surface disturbances

so that not only are the most acres designated as ACECs, but the associated management both in

and surrounding the ACEC has the most beneficial impacts to values of concern. Alternative D

has the next most beneficial impacts including proposed new withdrawals in the Lander Slope,

Twin Creek, and Red Canyon ACECs and other restrictions on mineral development and major

ROWs. Alternative C with no special ACEC management would have the fewest beneficial

impacts of all alternatives.

4.7.5.2. Methods and Assumptions

ACECs are areas requiring special management 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 (43 CFR 1610.0–5). Only one

management prescription comes automatically with ACEC designation; in an ACEC, a Plan of

Operations for locatable mineral exploration and development is required regardless of the amount

of surface disturbance, whereas outside an ACEC, a Plan of Operations is required if the area

disturbed would be larger than 5 acres (43 CFR 3809). The requirement for a Plan of Operations

allows the BLM limited ability to avoid or mitigate potential adverse impacts associated with

locatable mining operations such as uranium and gold mines, but does not preclude development.

In an effort to limit adverse impacts to values of concern, specific management prescriptions must

be adopted for each ACEC because there are no automatic management prescriptions other than a

Plan of Operations for small disturbances (generally, exploration).

Analysis of impacts to the values of concern under Alternative C assumes that management

would be subject only to standard stipulations, such as limits on construction on slopes in excess

of 25 percent or standard wildlife seasonal limitations unless some other non-ACEC management

imposes different prescriptions such as WSAs.

Impacts of ACEC management (or non-ACEC management) were determined based on GIS data

and information in the Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report, the RFD Scenario

for Oil and Gas, and wind-energy potential. GIS data and information were overlaid with

boundaries identified under Alternative B. Mineral and wind-energy potential and the specific

management constraints in the area were used as the basis of analysis when comparing impacts

to mineral resources from management under the alternatives.

4.7.5.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.7.5.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Generally, management prescriptions for the protection of air quality, geology, soil, water, and

lands with wilderness characteristics would benefit ACECs by preventing the degradation of those

resources located within the ACEC. This beneficial impact to ACECs would be secondary to other

benefits, such as improving wildlife habitat, which is an important component of wildlife ACECs

such as the Whiskey Mountain ACEC. Non-ACEC management actions to protect air quality,

soil, water, and vegetation through limiting surface-disturbing activities vary by alternative

depending on the number of acres protected by slope steepness, riparian-wetland buffer sizes,

and the protections applied in those buffers.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1136 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The Lander Field Office staff has determined that each proposed ACEC meets the FLPMA

relevance and importance criteria (BLM 2010e). This section analyzes the impacts to relevant

ACEC values from management actions for other programs. Impacts to other programs from

ACEC designations are addressed in resource-specific sections of this chapter. In addition, this

section only analyzes impacts to the values that meet the relevance and importance criteria.

Impacts to other values in the ACEC are not analyzed unless they contribute to the need for

special management. For example, although the South Pass Mining District contains important

wildlife habitat, its relevant and important values are limited to historic resources. Therefore

management impacts to wildlife in the South Pass area are not addressed in this section.

All mineral development and other surface-disturbing or disruptive activities, such as ROWs and

road development, would adversely impact elk, due both to loss and fragmentation of habitat and

human presence. While more surface disturbance would result in more adverse impacts, the

relationship is not linear; the first disturbances result in the greatest impacts. See the Fish and

Wildlife Resources – Wildlife section for more information. Elk are considered values of concern

in the Lander Slope, Red Canyon, East Fork, and Green Mountain ACECs.

All of the proposed ACECs are designed to protect wildlife, historic, and/or visual resources. In

general, surface-disturbing activities such as mineral development and realty actions reduce the

quality of habitat by causing fragmentation and removing vegetation. Often these developments

also create a moderate to strong contrast with the characteristic landscape for visual resources

or historical setting of ACECs. Therefore, surface-disturbing activities, regardless of the cause,

generally result in adverse impacts to ACEC values. In the analysis that follows, the adverse

impacts of surface disturbance will not be discussed repetitively; additional information regarding

adverse impacts to wildlife, historic, and visual resources are found in those respective sections.

The impact of the sale of forest products is not expected to vary by alternative over the planning

period because there is no foreseeable market for substantial quantities of saw timber. Therefore,

although current ACEC management addresses the amount of board-feet of timber available in

some of the ACECs, impacts from such sales are speculative. Specific future proposed projects

would require implementation-level analysis.

Impacts to ACEC values from management actions for cultural and paleontological resources

would be generally similar under all alternatives because of NHPA requirements. Cultural and

paleontological resource management could result in limited surface disturbance and loss of

vegetation if excavation is necessary. These potential impacts are addressed only for ACECs in

which such surface disturbance is anticipated to adversely impact visual and historic resources, as

impacts to wildlife habitat would likely be minimal.

As indicated above, ACEC designation triggers the requirement of a Plan of Operations for

locatable mineral activities even if less than five acres are to be disturbed. The environmental

impact of requiring a Plan of Operations is a modest to moderate inconvenience to a mining

applicant in the exploratory phase since having the BLM review a Plan of Operations is

administratively more burdensome than the applicant's merely filing a Notice. (Full-development

mining operations generally exceed five acres of disturbance and require a Plan of Operations.)

In addition, in reviewing the Plan of Operations, the BLM could require some modification of

the applicant's approach in order to minimize adverse impacts, but would not prevent successful

recovery of the mineral resource. The requirement for a Plan of Operations could make the

mining operation more costly or more time consuming, which would be adverse impacts to the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1137

claimant. However, these are not considered adverse impacts to the locatable mineral resource,

since recovery would not be precluded.

Since the management implications of Plans of Operations are the same for each alternative, the

following analysis does not repeat those implications, but merely states whether or not a Plan

of Operations would be required.

Restrictions on the exploration for, or development of mineral resources other than locatable

minerals and realty actions would generally result in beneficial impacts to values of concern. The

impacts of ACECs on those programs are analyzed in their respective sections.

All of the ACECs have management prescriptions for major ROWs such as large pipelines,

transmission lines, and wind-energy developments. Impacts from smaller ROWs such as those

required to access private property are not analyzed because they depend on site-specific factors.

The BLM is mandated to accommodate access to private property and will always seek to

co-locate minor ROWs and limit adverse impacts to resources and other uses. This type of

realty action is handled on a case-by-case basis with project-level analysis in consideration of

ACEC values.

Because none of the alternatives considers expansion of the road system, which would be an

adverse impact because of additional surface disturbance and wildlife habitat fragmentation,

there is no analysis of new roads.

Livestock grazing management varies by alternative but is authorized in all ACECs except

Whiskey Mountain and most of East Fork. Similar to other surface disturbances, disturbance

associated with range improvement projects would result in adverse impacts to ACEC values

because of the loss of vegetation due to livestock grazing concentration and surface disturbance

and the increases in habitat fragmentation, but also because of the increased potential for INNS.

The more surface disturbance, the greater the adverse impacts to ACEC values. However, range

improvement projects could also result in an increase in rapid improvements in riparian-wetland

health with long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife, if wildlife can access the riparian-wetland

areas. Impacts to ACEC values from livestock grazing are further addressed below under each

alternative. In all cases, no change in grazing management would occur until monitoring and

the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands assessments are done. The BLM expects

to complete this process at the rate of 5 percent of the allotments per year; therefore, changes

would be implemented slowly and grazing modifications made only where required to meet the

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. This gradual implementation is not further analyzed

in the individual ACECs.

The difference in travel management between limiting motorized travel to designated roads and

trails (Alternative B and in some cases alternatives A and D) rather than existing roads and trails

(Alternative C) is the same for all ACECs. On a long-term basis, limiting travel to designated

roads would reduce the density of roads, which would result in the beneficial impacts of increasing

vegetation and decreasing habitat fragmentation, and often would reduce the contrast with ACEC

visual resources. It is not possible to quantify these beneficial impacts to ACEC values, therefore,

they are described under the alternatives as long-term benefits. Some alternatives include

management that would limit mechanized travel, such as by bicycle, including on-road use and

cross-country use. Mechanized travel would result in less adverse impacts to ACEC values than

motorized travel, but more adverse impacts than pedestrian travel.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1138 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Management of over-snow motorized vehicle use varies by alternative and ACEC. Over-snow

travel would adversely impact wildlife values and could adversely impact scenic and cultural

values if it impacts below-snow vegetation and artifacts. Many of the ACECs are important

to the big game winter populations that concentrate in the area for the unique habitat offered.

Motorized winter travel would result in the most adverse impacts of any travel mode because

it occurs at a time when game is most vulnerable and with the fewest options to evade human

contact. Cross-country over-snow motorized travel, unlike other cross-country motorized travel,

is allowed except where specifically prohibited.

The analysis of Alternative C addresses potential impacts to identified relevant and important

values in the absence of ACEC management. Alternative C applies standard stipulations such

as seasonal closures for the protection of wildlife. Although Alternative C does not designate

ACECs, for simplicity, the area analyzed under Alternative C is called the ACEC to refer to

the same geographic area analyzed under alternatives A, B, and D. Similarly, in analyzing

proposed new ACECs and proposed expansion of ACECs not designated under Alternative A,

the area analyzed is described as the ACEC or expanded area to describe the geographic area,

not the management.

For all ACECs under each alternative, acreage is given for federal surface only. Management

of federal mineral estate in split-estate ownership will also be governed by ACEC management

actions. In no case does ACEC management apply to private or state lands, which are “clipped

out” of the ACEC, even if federally owned minerals in those clipped out areas are subject to

ACEC management.

Impacts common to all alternatives for each ACEC are described under Impacts Common to

All Alternatives.

Under all alternatives, the use of heavy equipment in fire suppression would be restricted in

areas containing sensitive resources. This includes all ACECs. Therefore, adverse impacts to

ACEC values from the use of heavy equipment would not vary by alternative and are not further

analyzed in this section. Whether or not full suppression of wildland fire is utilized varies by

alternative. Full suppression could result in adverse impacts to wildlife and visual resources, at

least in the short term, if resources were damaged by fire suppression efforts. Conversely, full

suppression would result in short-term beneficial impacts by preventing fire damage to vegetation.

However, on a long-term basis, full suppression could lead to fuels buildup and increase the

risk of landscape-level fires, with substantial adverse impacts to ACEC values. Rather than

repeat these potential outcomes from wildland fire, the following analysis identifies whether full

suppression will be used.

All alternatives manage WSAs in accordance with the interim guidance (with minor differences

in travel management not relevant here). Therefore, there would be no differences in impacts to

ACEC values among the alternatives. Individual ACEC discussions include more information for

ACECs that overlap WSAs.

Each of the following alternatives are analyzed separately, although this approach results in some

duplication of material, such as repeating adverse impacts to wildlife in each of the ACECs in

which wildlife is a value of concern. This approach is taken to accommodate readers who may be

interested in only one ACEC, such as the Green Mountain ACEC, but not the Whiskey Mountain

ACEC even though both have wildlife as values of concern.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1139

4.7.5.3.2. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – Lander Slope

4.7.5.3.2.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternatives A, B, and D designate 25,065 acres as an ACEC to protect big game winter range

and scenic views. Alternative C does not designate the area as an ACEC and manages it with

standard stipulations.

Alternative C would result in the most adverse impacts to ACEC values because it would manage

the area with standard stipulations which would not preclude surface disturbance that would

adversely impact wildlife and viewshed. Alternatives A and D have very similar management and

similar impacts, except that Alternative A would be somewhat more adverse because prescriptions

avoid but do not explicitly prohibit potentially adverse actions such as phosphate leasing, and

Alternative A merely requires a Plan of Operations for locatable mineral actions smaller than 5

acres whereas Alternative D proposes the withdrawal of these areas from locatable mineral entry.

Alternative B would result in the fewest adverse impacts to the resources of concern because it

would preclude development of all leasable and salable minerals, whereas alternatives A and D

would only preclude surface use for fluid mineral development and associated disturbance, such

as utilities and roads required to support NSO development.

Alternative B would result in the most beneficial impacts because resources are emphasized over

resource uses. Wildlife protections would be the most beneficial under Alternative B and VRM

would limit the most visual intrusions. Alternative D has the next most beneficial impacts. Similar

to Alternative B, VRM would restrict development. Mineral management is less beneficial in that

the area is open to oil and gas development subject to NSO, rather than closed; because there is

low potential, this difference in impact could be small. Alternatives B and D withdraw the ACEC

from locatable mineral entry. Alternative A is similar in its impacts, although the ACEC is

only avoided and not excluded from major ROWs, and open to phosphate leasing with surface

restrictions rather than closed. Since the Lander Slope has phosphate potential, this difference

between alternatives B and D may be moderate or more less beneficial. Alternative C would have

the fewest beneficial impacts because VRM would allow far more adverse intrusions and oil and

gas development is not limited. ROWs might adversely impact both viewshed and habitat since

they are not prescribed except by slope and riparian-wetland areas.

4.7.5.3.2.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The view of most of the Lander Slope ACEC is very prominent from the City of Lander and its

surrounding areas. As a result, extensive surface disturbance would be highly visible and present a

strong contrast with undisturbed areas. Protection of many cultural resources, including viewshed

and limits on development, would also protect the relevant visual resources in the ACEC. The

absence of such protection would result in adverse impacts to the ACEC.

All alternatives identify the Lander Slope as an area in which full-suppression fire management

should be utilized; open the area to livestock grazing; and manage travel to meet wildlife

and scenic values. Therefore, impacts from these actions would not vary by alternative. All

alternatives emphasize acquisition of parcels on the Lander Slope to support relevant and

important values, including Alternative C, even though the area is not managed as an ACEC.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1140 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.2.3. Alternative A

4.7.5.3.2.3.1. Program Management

The 1987 RMP and EIS ROD designated the Lander Slope as an ACEC for wildlife, primarily

for big game winter range, and for scenic values. Big game use the windswept portions of the

ACEC for forage during winter when snow buries their summer range in the Shoshone National

Forest. See the Lander ACEC Report (BLM 2010e) for a detailed discussion of these values.

Management actions that protect physical and biological values result in direct beneficial impacts

to Lander Slope ACEC wildlife by protecting forage and intact habitat, and avoiding adverse

impacts to visual resources. Vegetation is managed to provide forage for the elk and mule deer

populations in the ACEC. The area has restrictive minerals and realty management.

4.7.5.3.2.3.2. Resources

General management of resources under Alternative A would result in beneficial impacts to

ACEC values by protecting soil and riparian-wetland areas from disturbance. Although forest

management is addressed, it is unlikely to impact ACEC values; see above under Impacts

Common to All Alternatives. Alternative A includes some vegetative treatment in the Lander

Slope ACEC to benefit wildlife forage. These treatments would result in long-term beneficial

impacts to wildlife habitat by contributing to vegetative diversity and forage, and preventing

INNS encroachment. However, there would be a short-term adverse impact to visual resources

unless the impacts were properly mitigated. Grasslands management would have a beneficial

impact to elk and mule deer.

Wildlife management in the Lander Slope ACEC includes seasonal closures for the benefit of

large concentrations of wintering big game. However, wildlife management under Alternative

A does not prohibit fences, which could result in adverse impacts. However, if the fences were

utilized for improvement of riparian-wetland areas, a minor beneficial impact could result.

Greater sage-grouse management would result in marginal beneficial impacts to ACEC values by

buffering leks against surface disturbance, but only by minimal amounts.

Alternative A VRM would result in beneficial impacts to the Lander Slope ACEC by retaining

(VRM Class II) or partially retaining (VRM Class III) the existing character of the landscape. This

management would avoid adverse impacts to both scenic and wildlife resources by restricting

development that would adversely impact visual resources and potentially fragment habitat.

4.7.5.3.2.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A applies an NSO stipulation to oil and gas development, which limits

surface-disturbing activities.

Alternative A does not close the ACEC to phosphate or other solid mineral leasing, but places

restrictions on phosphate recovery to protect sensitive visual resources and crucial wildlife habitat.

In the absence of an explicit prohibition on surface occupancy for phosphate mines or outright

closure to leasing, any proposal for a lease would require analysis of potential impacts, including

stripping of all vegetation and soil, and surface removal of the mineral (strip mining) with severe

declines in big game populations. It is likely, but not mandated, that a leasing application, a BLM

discretionary activity, would be denied under Alternative A because the surface disturbance on

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1141

the Lander Slope would be highly visible from Lander and the surrounding communities, and

because of the loss of crucial winter habitat for big game that summer throughout the Shoshone

National Forest.

Alternative A does not withdraw the ACEC from locatable mineral entry. (As discussed above,

the RMP recommendation is to segregate the area and pursue locatable mineral withdrawal.)

Historically, there has been little demand for locatable minerals in the ACEC, but the geologic

formations (Upper Cretaceous aged Frontier Formation and the Lower Cretaceous aged Mowry

and Thermopolis Shales) contain bentonite, a locatable mineral. While the impacts of exploration

on the ACEC values would be adverse to ACEC values, they could be mitigated and reclaimed

through the requirement of a Plan of Operations that comes with ACEC designation. Full

mining, however, would adversely impact both viewshed and wildlife habitat. Both above-and

belowground mining would fragment habitat and block migration patterns, and result in a visual

scar that would remain long after mining was completed and reclamation implemented. Mining

activities would require roads and utilities, which would cause further damage to the ACEC

values.

Alternative A does not close the Lander Slope ACEC to mineral materials disposals which,

if allowed, would likely result in a strong to moderate contrast with the landscape. Because

Alternative A does not close the ACEC to such sales, they would remain a possible adverse

impact and any application would need to be analyzed in accordance with NEPA.

Alternative A avoids the Lander Slope ACEC for major ROWs and corridors, which would

protect habitat values by retaining vegetation, avoiding fragmentation of habitat, and preserving

the viewshed. However, because Alternative A does not manage the ACEC as an ROW exclusion

area, if there were no alternative location for the ROW, it would be permitted. The most likely

demand for a ROW would be to support wind-energy development on public or private lands. The

ACEC is not closed to wind-energy development and would consider it on a case-by-case basis.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative A allows continued construction of rangeland

infrastructure, including fences and water projects. This construction, coupled with the trend of

subdividing private lands, is expected to continue. As the private lands near the Lander Slope

ACEC are subdivided, demand for fencing in the ACEC is expected to increase to limit conflicts

among livestock, wildlife, and human uses. Moderate use of forage by livestock, as allowed by

Alternative A, would leave less forage for use by wildlife.

The Bus @ Baldwin Creek, Red Canyon/Lander Slope, and Sinks Canyon climbing areas are

part of the planning area-wide ERMA, with no specific management actions or identified

recreational settings or experiences. Alternative A allows motorized recreation on designated

roads, which would increase conflicts with animals and create pressure on wildlife. Cross-country

mechanized travel is allowed, which would likely increase soil loss and fragmentation of habitat.

Cross-country travel by bicycle would increase conflicts with wildlife by expanding the area

for human access. Bicycles would increase adverse impacts from human contact more than

pedestrian travel. Alternative A opens the Baldwin Creek climbing trail to forest product removal.

Alternative A limits motorized travel to designated roads and trails, which would likely lead

to reduced road density or number of roads, although Alternative A only identifies roads for

closure on a case-by-case basis. Decreased road density would be a long-term beneficial impact to

wildlife by increasing vegetative cover and reducing contrast with the landscape, which, by reason

of the linear nature of roads, are a strong to moderate contrast with line, color, and texture. Road

designation under Alternative A has not been fully implemented, in part because designations

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1142 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

have been difficult to enforce with the presence of intermingled private land. Therefore, there has

been some degree of road proliferation, which adversely impacts wildlife and scenic values.

Alternative A opens the ACEC to over-snow vehicle travel regardless of snow depth, which

would result in an adverse impact by stressing wildlife at a time of the year when they are

most vulnerable. Over-snow vehicle travel can remove vegetation and compact soil if there is

not enough snow cover. Over-snow vehicles used to collect antlers bring vehicles close to elk

populations, and could also result in use that disturbs or harasses the animals. Because the ACEC

value is for wintering big game, adverse impacts from over-snow vehicles would be substantial.

4.7.5.3.2.3.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative A, the Baldwin Creek Unit is managed as eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS

to maintain its free flowing character, which complements management of ACEC values by

limiting surface disturbance around it and restricting development that would change its wild

and scenic character.

4.7.5.3.2.4. Alternative B

4.7.5.3.2.4.1. Program Management

Alternative B designates the same amount of acres on the Lander Slope as an ACEC as Alternative

A. Alternative B resource protections and limits on surface disturbances for a wide variety of

resource uses would result in substantial beneficial impacts to ACEC values. Alternative B closes

the ACEC to all mineral development and major ROWs, which would result in more beneficial

impacts than the less restrictive management under Alternative A.

4.7.5.3.2.4.2. Resources

Management of air quality, soil, and water under Alternative B would benefit ACEC wildlife and

visual resources by limiting erosion and fugitive dust. Alternative B would close more acres to

surface disturbance than Alternative A. Alternative B would implement a more proactive approach

to reduce emissions and improve air quality, which could improve the view of the ACEC from

surrounding communities. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B includes more restrictive

management of activities that could degrade water quality as well as limit surface disturbance.

Following a fire or a timber sale, Alternative B would result in more beneficial impacts to forest

resources than Alternative A because Alternative B mandates forest replanting. Alternative B

management to protect forest health from insect and disease outbreak would likely result in more

short-term adverse impacts than Alternative A because under Alternative B, treatment would be

attempted solely to protect human health and safety. The short-term loss of forest health would

result in a short-term adverse impact to wildlife habitat and could result in reduced visual resource

values. Under Alternative B management, a landscape-level fire could result in long-term adverse

impacts to visual resources and wildlife.

Alternative B grassland and shrubland management would have the same beneficial impacts to

wildlife as Alternative A. Closing the Baldwin Creek climbing area and access trail to forest

product removal would result in more beneficial impacts than under Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1143

Although all alternatives would utilize an integrated approach to the management of INNS, an

identified problem in the Lander Slope ACEC, INNS management would require more fire and

mechanical treatment under Alternative B because of limitations on the use of chemicals in

known aquifer recharge areas, which includes much of the ACEC. While this management would

be more protective of water quality, it could reduce the acres treated and could result in loss of

native vegetation that cannot compete against INNS. Alternative B has the potential to result in

more beneficial impacts to vegetation by allowing the Authorized Officer to require livestock

flushing before they are turned out on the public lands if it appears they have ingested INNS feed.

Alternative B is also more proactive in addressing the link between BLM-permitted activities

and the spread of INNS, which should result in a long-term beneficial impact to vegetation,

and therefore wildlife.

Wildlife management under Alternative B would result in more beneficial impacts to the Lander

Slope ACEC values than Alternative A. Under Alternative B, livestock forage is adjusted as

needed to meet big-game herd objectives, and vegetation management emphasizes wildlife needs.

Alternative B would remove some existing fences and would not authorize new fences on public

lands. Alternative B road closures to benefit wildlife would result in a long-term beneficial impact

to ACEC wildlife values. However, the closures are not anticipated to result in any short-term

benefits. Sage-grouse management buffers leks with a larger buffer than in Alternative A, which

increases the areas closed to surface disturbance in the greater sage-grouse Core Area.

Alternative B would protect visual resources more than Alternative A because Alternative B

manages all of the ACEC as VRM Class II, which restricts more surface disturbances than in the

portions of the ACEC managed as VRM Class III under Alternative A. Alternative B manages

visual resources on the NWSRS-eligible segment as VRM Class I, which would be a beneficial

impact. Visual and wildlife resources would benefit from the BLM pursuit of conservation

easements on lands adjoining the ACEC to limit surface disturbance around the ACEC and

within its viewshed.

4.7.5.3.2.4.3. Resource Uses

Mineral management under Alternative B is more protective of ACEC values than under

Alternative A. Alternative B would have the fewest adverse impacts to the resources of concern

because it precludes development of all leasable and salable minerals, whereas alternatives A

and D only preclude surface use for fluid mineral development and associated disturbance such

as utilities and roads required to support NSO development. The beneficial impact of this

management would clarify to the public that these types of surface disturbances are precluded

rather than the less clear direction of Alternative A, which leaves open the possibility of mineral

development. Alternative B withdraws the ACEC from locatable mineral entry such as bentonite

which beneficially impacts ACEC values. Mining of locatable minerals would adversely

impact both viewshed and wildlife habitat whether mining were surface mining or underground

operations supported on the surface by roads and utility lines and adverse impacts associated with

transportation of the material. Locatable mineral management under this alternative could have

beneficial impacts in relation to Alternative A, depending on the market for bentonite. Placer

gold operations would also be precluded under Alternative B, but because the likelihood of this

occurring is much lower than for bentonite mining, the beneficial impacts of this management

are much lower.

Alternative B management of wind-energy development and major ROWs and corridors would be

markedly more beneficial to ACEC values than Alternative A management because Alternative B

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1144 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

manages the ACEC as an exclusion area for these realty actions. Excluding major ROWs would

beneficially impact both habitat and visual resources in the ACEC.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative B would result in fewer adverse impacts to

ACEC values than under Alternative A because Alternative B manages grazing for rangeland

health by reducing livestock use of vegetation to light utilization. In addition, rangeland

infrastructure would not be authorized, although this would also preclude using fences to improve

riparian-wetland areas. Alternative B could use the funds Alternative A would spend on range

improvement projects for vegetation treatments to improve rangeland health with both short- and

long-term beneficial impacts. However, while fencing of BLM-administered lands would not

increase beyond current amounts and could be reduced, it is likely that fencing on private lands

would increase to meet light utilization rates. It is not possible to estimate the extent to which

such private fencing would increase (much of the private land in the ACEC is already fenced), but

fencing would generally adversely impact both wildlife and visual resources.

Alternative B would close the Bus @ Baldwin Creek and Sinks Canyon climbing areas to

motorized vehicle use, even on designated roads, therefore avoiding conflicts between motorized

vehicle use and wildlife on less than 10 miles of roads. However, the increased use of these two

areas by those seeking a nonmotorized type of recreational experience could offset decreased use

by motorized vehicles. It is not possible to analyze these different impacts because recreational

use would most likely occur outside of the winter season when wildlife is most likely to be present.

Outside of the two RMZs, travel management under Alternative B would result in more beneficial

impacts to wildlife and scenic values than Alternative A. Although Alternative A limits travel to

designated roads and trails with seasonal restrictions, this management has not been implemented

in a way that can be enforced. Designation of roads and trails under Alternative B would be

followed with implementation-level planning, which would deter user-created routes and

unauthorized road expansions that have been allowed to proliferate under current management

(Alternative A).

Over-snow motorized use is prohibited under Alternative B, which would be substantially

more beneficial to wildlife than the open use under Alternative A, particularly because of the

importance of the ACEC as a big-game winter concentration area. This management would also

avoid adverse impacts to visual and cultural resources caused by travel that degrades vegetation

and artifacts under the snow.

4.7.5.3.2.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative B manages more segments for inclusion in the NWSRS with more protective

measures to maintain their ORVs, which would result in more beneficial impacts to the ACEC

because of additional limits on surface disturbance.

4.7.5.3.2.5. Alternative C

4.7.5.3.2.5.1. Program Management

Alternative C designates no portion of the Lander Slope area as an ACEC. Instead, the area would

be managed with standard prescriptions such as limits on disturbance based on slope and distance

from riparian-wetland areas. Alternative C favors resource use and in general offers fewer

protections to wildlife and scenic resources. Therefore, it would result in more adverse impacts to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1145

ACEC values than Alternative A or B. The following analyzes the impacts from management

actions for the area designated as an ACEC under alternatives A, B, and D.

4.7.5.3.2.5.2. Resources

Alternative C would not proactively manage air quality like Alternative B, and similar to

Alternative A manages soil and water resources with standard stipulations of closing only slopes

greater than 25 percent. Alternative C waives these setbacks if a shorter distance is adequate.

This somewhat less stringent management would result in adverse impacts to ACEC values.

Clear-cuts are allowed under Alternative C and can be within 100 feet of riparian-wetland areas

and on slopes up to 45 percent. This difference from Alternative B might not be meaningful if

there is no change in the local demand for timber/biomass. Fuels treatment and fire management

impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except that Alternative C could result in more

beneficial impacts because it does not limit chemical treatment. Similar to Alternative B,

Alternative C would close the Baldwin Creek climbing area and access trail to forest product

removal to prevent adverse impacts to visual resources.

Shrubland and grassland management under Alternative C would be less beneficial to ACEC

wildlife because it emphasizes forage production for all grazing animals and not for wildlife

as under Alternative B. Vegetative treatments would also emphasize forage production under

Alternative C, not ecological diversity or wildlife needs. Riparian-wetland protections are the

same as Alternative A with the same moderate beneficial impacts to intact wildlife habitat and

visual resources, but less than under Alternative B's greater buffer.

Alternative C would increase areas open to surface disturbance in comparison to Alternative B

with the potential for more adverse impacts. Although no additional roads are contemplated under

any alternative, the additional acres open to major ROWs and realty actions and the larger area

available for surface disturbance under Alternative C would increase the likelihood of INNS

infestation. Under Alternative C, all available funds would be utilized for range improvement

projects. This would result in fewer beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative B,

because Alternative B would have more vegetative treatments.

Alternative C wildlife management would result in more adverse impacts to wildlife than

under Alternative B. This would also adversely impact big game concentrated in the ACEC.

Alternative C has the same buffer as Alternative A, which closes substantially less acres to

surface disturbance than Alternative B. Alternative C does not limit habitat fragmentation or

increase vegetation by closing roads or limiting the footprint of projects, which would adversely

impact wildlife. Alternative C does not apply seasonal restrictions to oil and gas O&M actions,

therefore, there would be adverse impacts to wildlife during important seasons in their life-cycles

due to disruptions from O&M actions. Because the Lander Slope ACEC is open to oil and gas

development, O&M activities can occur year-round, despite adverse impacts to wildlife. The

Biological Resources section describes these impacts to wildlife in more detail.

VRM under Alternative C allows more surface disturbance because the ACEC is managed

as Class III and Class IV. This would result in greater adverse impacts to ACEC values than

Alternative B, because substantially more development would meet this VRM Class and result in

more adverse impacts to ACEC visual resources. ACEC key observation points, which include all

of the City of Lander and its surrounding areas, are from a subordinate position, which would

increase the contrast of any development.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1146 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.2.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C opens the ACEC to mineral leasing and disposal with standard slope and

riparian-wetland stipulations. Adverse impacts from surface oil and gas operations would likely

be minimal because the potential for the presence of oil and gas is low. However, early oil

exploration has resulted in adverse impacts to visual resources in the ACEC that are still visible.

Alternative C allows geophysical exploration, which would result in adverse short-term impacts

to wildlife and visual resources due to vegetation and soil compaction. Long-term adverse

impacts are not anticipated.

Alternative C would result in substantially more adverse impacts to visual and wildlife resources

because it opens the ACEC to surface mining of phosphate. There are phosphate resources on

8,175 acres of the ACEC. The location of mineralization is on the portion of the ACEC easily

visible from the surrounding communities and, particularly, the residences in the foothills.

Surface mining of phosphate would remove all vegetation and overburden and create a pit to a

depth necessary to obtain all of the minerals (approximately 300 to 400 feet). As with the iron

mine on Route 28 through the South Pass area, phosphate mines would be visible from most

observation points in the surrounding communities. Underground mining would have fewer

adverse impacts to vegetation than strip mining, but would still result in adverse impacts to ACEC

values through surface disturbance for facilities and access roads, and increased use of the area by

motorized vehicles. The ACEC would be lost as winter habitat for the big game that concentrate

in the area, with a resulting loss of herd numbers that would likely be irreversible. This would be

both a short- and long-term adverse impact to wildlife.

Like Alternative A, Alternative C does not preclude locatable mineral entry. Because the Lander

Slope area is not designated an ACEC, there would be no requirement for a Plan of Operations for

activities smaller than 5 acres. This management could result in more adverse impacts to ACEC

values, because the BLM would not have authority to limit exploration activities or require

mitigation as it could do under Alternative A. The extent of the adverse impacts would depend on

the demand for bentonite or other locatable minerals.

Management of major ROWs and corridors, including wind-energy development and transmission

lines and minor ROWs, under Alternative C, would result in substantially more adverse impacts

to visual resources than Alternative B, which excludes these developments. Portions of the ACEC

have high potential for wind-energy development. Industrial wind-energy development assumes

approximately 5 turbines of at least 450 feet in height per section, plus roads, pads, structures, and

transmission lines. Adverse impacts to ACEC visual resources from wind-energy development

would result in a much more industrial backdrop to Lander and its foothills. It is likely that the

loss of big game winter concentration habitat would be permanent.

Alternative C would include major ROWs in the ACEC. The demand for ROWs in the ACEC

cannot be determined because, for the last quarter century, the Lander Slope has been an

avoidance area for major ROWs. However, the ACEC and adjoining lands have high potential for

wind energy, development which is allowed under Alternative C, but prohibited under Alternative

B. By allowing major ROWs, Alternative C would facilitate wind-energy development, not

just on BLM-administered lands, but on the adjoining Shoshone National Forest, which is not

protected by wilderness designation. Development of wind energy has been limited because

locating transmission lines on adjoining lands has not been allowed under ACEC management

since 1987, which avoided the ACEC. Transmission lines allowed under Alternative C would

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1147

have the potential to adversely impact visual resources and wildlife values in the same way as

industrial wind-energy development.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative C would result in adverse impacts to ACEC

values similar to Alternative A. Alternative C would allow higher utilization rates, which would

reduce the vegetation available to wildlife, and make progress toward rangeland health through

additional infrastructure, including water developments and fencing (see the discussion in the

Biological Resources section). It is not possible to determine how much additional fencing is

needed or would be constructed because some of the private land in the ACEC is already fenced.

Alternative C would result in impacts to vegetation and wildlife in the Bus @ Baldwin Creek and

Sinks Canyon climbing areas similar to Alternative A. These impacts would be more adverse

than impacts under Alternative B because Alternative C allows mechanized cross-country travel,

resulting in impacts to vegetation. The impacts are difficult to assess because increased recreation

management focusing on the Bus @ Baldwin Creek under Alternative B could increase use, thus

increasing adverse impacts to wildlife from human activity. Other recreation management in the

ACEC under Alternative C focuses on maintaining the safety of recreationists and reducing

conflicts which would not beneficially impact values of concern.

Alternative C limits travel to existing roads and trails, which would result in more adverse

impacts to ACEC values than the Alternative B limits to designated roads and trails. Alternative

C management of impacts from over-snow vehicles would be the same as Alternative A, and

more adverse to wildlife than Alternative B.

4.7.5.3.2.5.4. Special Designations

In addition to not managing the area as an ACEC, management of the Baldwin Creek and North

Fork waterway segments under Alternative C would not preclude adverse impacts to the area’s

wildlife and visual resources. In contrast to the other alternatives, Alternative C does not specially

manage the NWSRS-eligible segments in the ACEC as VRM Class I. Alternative C allows water

diversion projects, even if there would be adverse impacts to the segments.

4.7.5.3.2.6. Alternative D

4.7.5.3.2.6.1. Program Management

Alternative D designates the same area on the Lander Slope as an ACEC as alternatives A and

B. Its management is similar to Alternative B in that both alternatives segregate the area to

pursue locatable mineral withdrawal, with somewhat more beneficial impacts than Alternative A,

and fewer adverse impacts than Alternative C.

4.7.5.3.2.6.2. Resources

Alternative D management of air quality, soil, and water would beneficially impact wildlife and

visual resources in the Lander Slope ACEC by limiting erosion and fugitive dust. Alternative

D closes the same number of acres to surface disturbance for a riparian-wetland buffer as

alternatives A and C, and approximately 50 percent less than Alternative B. Alternative D

implements the same approach to emissions and air quality as alternatives A and C, which would

result in more adverse impacts to the view of the ACEC from the surrounding communities

than under Alternative B.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1148 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative D would include more restrictive management of activities that could degrade water

quality than Alternative A or Alternative C, which would reduce surface disturbance and thus

benefit ACEC values of concern. Following a fire or a timber sale, Alternative D, like Alternative

A, would be less beneficial to forest resources than Alternative B or C because Alternative D

mandates forest replanting only after it is determined that natural processes would not result

in regeneration. It is not possible to determine how much less beneficial this impact would

be, because forest product sales would not be likely under any alternative, and all alternatives

allow full fire suppression.

Alternative D management to protect forest health from insect and disease outbreak would be

similar to Alternative A and less likely to result in short-term adverse impacts than Alternative

B, which provides that treatment be attempted only to protect human health and safety. The

short- and long-term impacts of case-by-case management under alternatives A and D cannot be

quantified, but this management would likely result in fewer adverse impacts than Alternative B

or Alternative C because it offers more management flexibility in vegetative treatments that meet

the VRM objectives of the ACEC. In the long term, it is expected that this treatment would help

to maintain visual resources and avoid landscape-level fires that would result in long-term adverse

impacts to wildlife habitat and reduce the value of visual resources. In the long term, Alternative

D would result in similar beneficial impacts to forest life-cycle by allowing natural processes to be

reestablished, but this benefit would not be evident during the planning period. Landscape-level

fire could result in long-term adverse impacts to visual resources and wildlife in the ACEC.

Alternative D would manage grassland and shrubland communities to support a diversity of

wildlife, and close the Baldwin Creek climbing area and access trail to forest product removal.

These actions would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife in the Lander Slope ACEC. This

management is similar to alternatives A and B, and would result in similar beneficial impacts to

ACEC values. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts by managing for livestock

production.

Although all alternatives use an integrated approach to the management of INNS, INNS

management would require more fire and mechanical treatment under Alternative D because of

limitations on the use of chemicals in known aquifer recharge areas, which includes much of the

ACEC, although chemicals may be used if no other treatment is effective. While this management

is more protective of water quality, it could reduce the acres of treatment and could result in the

loss of native vegetation that cannot compete with INNS. This management is similar to, but less

restrictive than Alternative B. Alternative D could result in beneficial impacts to vegetation by

allowing the Authorized Officer to require livestock flushing before they are turned out on the

public lands if it appears that they have ingested INNS feed. Alternative D is also more proactive

in addressing the link between BLM-permitted activities and the spread of invasive plant species,

which should result in a long-term beneficial impact to vegetation and, therefore, wildlife.

The presence of invasive plant species would adversely impact visual resources, not only because

of the different appearance of invasive plant species than native vegetation, but because of the

more intense fire regimes associated with heavy invasive plant species infestations and the

resulting adverse impacts to visual resources.

Wildlife management under Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts to ACEC

wildlife values than alternatives A and C, but fewer than Alternative B. The acres closed to

surface disturbance around sage-grouse leks is the same as Alternative B in the Core Area

but less outside of the Core Area. Alternative D is the same as Alternative A with regard to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1149

authorizing roads, which would result in more adverse impacts than Alternative B, which closes

the ACEC to new roads for wildlife protections and also includes more proactive road closures of

redundant roads to reduce adverse impacts to habitat. It is not clear how different the impacts

would be because no alternative assumes new roads in the area. However, with the trend toward

subdividing private lands near or adjoining the ACEC (see the Cumulative Impacts section) the

difference could increase in importance over time.

ACEC values would further benefit from management of the area to the east of the ACEC in the

Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area, which has strong limits on minerals activities and

ROWs for the protection of wildlife, heritage, and viewshed values. This management would

result in beneficial impacts similar to those under Alternative B and much more beneficial than

alternatives A and B. Seasonal protections under Alternative D for mule deer winter range and

crucial winter range will have similar beneficial impacts to mule deer, which are one of the

resources of importance in the ACEC.

As under Alternative A, Alternative D manages forage and adjusts livestock utilization rates as

needed to meet big game herd objectives, and manages vegetation to emphasize wildlife needs.

This would result in impacts similar to but possibly less beneficial to Lander Slope ACEC wildlife

than Alternative B. Alternatives A and D would result in more beneficial impacts than Alternative

C, which emphasizes livestock use over wildlife values and does not limit roads or fences.

Alternative D would remove some existing fences and would not approve new fences so as to

avoid habitat fragmentation and migration (see Resource Uses for livestock grazing below), an

important beneficial impact to ACEC wildlife and visual resources. Alternative D road closures

to benefit wildlife would result in a long-term beneficial impact to ACEC wildlife and resource

values. However, road closures are not anticipated to result in any short-term beneficial impacts.

Alternatives B and D would protect visual resources more than Alternative A, because they

manage all of the ACEC as VRM Class II (except for the WSR segments that are Class I). This

would restrict more development, particularly ones that would be highly visible. Visual and

wildlife resources under Alternative D would benefit from the BLM pursuit of conservation

easements on lands adjoining the Lander Slope ACEC to limit surface disturbance.

4.7.5.3.2.6.3. Resource Uses

Leasable and mineral material management would result in more beneficial impacts to Lander

Slope ACEC values under Alternative D than under Alternative A, with almost as many

beneficial impacts as Alternative B. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D would close the

ACEC to phosphate leasing, mineral materials disposals, locatable mineral entry, and geophysical

exploration. Similar to Alternative A, Alternative D applies NSO restrictions for oil and gas

development in the ACEC, which would result in fewer beneficial impacts compared to the

leasing closure under Alternative B. The most notable difference between alternatives B and D

and Alternative A is in the locatable mineral program; Alternative A does not withdraw any

areas in the ACEC, whereas alternatives B and D propose to withdraw the entire ACEC. The

actual adverse impacts of this difference is unclear, because the mineral resources present are

primarily phosphate rather than any locatable minerals. As discussed for Alternative B, closure

to phosphate leasing is a stronger protection than the limits under Alternative A. Therefore,

Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A.

In all mineral actions, Alternative C would result in the most adverse impacts to Lander Slope

ACEC values of all the alternatives because it manages mineral actions with standard stipulations

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1150 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

that allow surface disturbance for oil and gas and phosphate extraction. See the discussion under

Alternative A regarding the adverse impacts that would likely result to both the ACEC wildlife

and visual resources from phosphate mining.

Management of wind-energy development and major ROWs and corridors under Alternative D

would result in more beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A, because Alternative

D closes the Lander Slope ACEC to these actions, whereas Alternative A merely avoids them.

This management would result in the same beneficial impacts as Alternative B, and would avoid

the adverse impacts discussed under Alternative C. Even if no other route is available, the realty

action would be denied and surface disturbance prevented under Alternative D.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative D would result in fewer adverse impacts

to Lander Slope ACEC values than under Alternative A because Alternative D allows range

improvement projects only if their purpose is to enhance ACEC values. This would likely result

in more beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative B, which prohibits range improvements of

any kind. Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts than Alternative A, which allows

range improvement projects that are not for the benefit of wildlife. Alternative C would result

in many more adverse impacts as this alternative would not limit range improvement projects,

because it does not emphasize protecting wildlife and visual resources.

Livestock utilization levels under Alternative D are the same as under alternatives A and C.

However, like Alternative B, Alternative D protects wildlife forage resources. This would avoid

the adverse impacts under Alternative C, which has higher utilization levels and does not have

wildlife forage protection as an objective.

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D closes the Bus @ Baldwin Creek and Sinks Canyon

climbing areas to motorized vehicle use, even on designated roads, thus avoiding conflicts

between motorized vehicle use and wildlife in these areas. However, the increased use of these

two areas by those seeking a nonmotorized type of recreational experience could offset decreased

use by motorized vehicles. It is not possible to analyze the differences in impacts because the elk

and mule deer that use these areas for winter habitat would likely be concentrated at the higher

elevations in the Shoshone National Forest during the seasons when recreational use is highest.

Compared to alternatives A and C, Alternative D is more protective of vegetation and soils and

better avoids fragmentation by limiting mechanized use such as bicycles to designated roads, and

closing 1,298 acres from cross-country nonmotorized use.

Outside the two RMZs, travel management under Alternative D would be more beneficial to

wildlife and scenic values than Alternative A. Although Alternative A limits travel to designated

roads and trails with seasonal restrictions, this management has not been implemented in a way

that can be enforced.

Alternative D allows over-snow motorized travel (as opposed to Alternative B, which prohibits

over-snow travel), but Alternative D would avoid potentially adverse impacts to soils and

vegetation that could occur under alternatives A and C because Alternative D requires that

motorized over-snow vehicles comply with standard travel management (designated roads

and trails) unless there are at least 12 inches of snow. While this would not result in the same

beneficial impacts as Alternative B’s avoidance of conflicts between wildlife and motorized

vehicles, Alternative D would avoid adverse impacts to visual and cultural resources caused by

travel that degrades vegetation and artifacts under the snow.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1151

4.7.5.3.2.6.4. Special Designations

Alternative D would manage NWSRS-eligible segments along Baldwin Creek as suitable for

inclusion in the NWSRS, but not the North Fork of the Popo Agie, as under Alternative B.

Alternative D limits surface disturbance and thus would result in more beneficial impacts to

ACEC values than Alternative C, which would not specially manage any part of the ACEC as

suitable for WSR designation.

4.7.5.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – Red Canyon

4.7.5.3.3.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternatives A, B, and D would designate 15,109 acres as an ACEC to protect big game winter

range and scenic views. Alternative C does not designate the area as an ACEC and manages it

with standard stipulations.

Alternative C would result in the most adverse impacts to ACEC values because it manages the

area with standard stipulations which would not preclude surface disturbance that would adversely

impact wildlife and viewshed. Alternatives A and D have very similar management and similar

impacts, except that Alternative A may be somewhat more adverse because prescriptions avoid,

but do not explicitly prohibit potentially adverse actions such as phosphate leasing. Alternative B

would result in the fewest adverse impacts because the area is closed to oil and gas leasing and

not just NSO as with alternatives A and D.

Alternative B would have the most beneficial impacts because resources are emphasized over

resource uses. Wildlife protections would be the most beneficial under Alternative B because

VRM limits the most visual intrusions. Alternative D would have the next most beneficial

impacts. Like Alternative B, VRM restricts development. Mineral management would be less

beneficial in that the area would be open to oil and gas development subject to NSO, rather than

closed; because there is low potential, this difference in impact could be small. Alternatives B and

D would withdraw the ACEC from locatable mineral entry. Alternative A would have impacts

similar to alternatives B and D, although the ACEC would only be avoided and not excluded to

major ROWs, and open to phosphate leasing with surface restrictions rather than closed. Since

the Lander Slope has phosphate potential, this difference from alternatives B and D may be

moderate or less beneficial. Alternative C would have the fewest beneficial impacts because

VRM would allow more adverse intrusions and oil and gas development is not limited. ROWs

might adversely impact both viewshed and habitat since they are not prescribed except by slope

and riparian-wetland areas.

4.7.5.3.3.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The view of Red Canyon from Highway 28 and surrounding areas is considered one of the most

iconic views in Wyoming. Its prominence means that surface disturbance would be highly visible

and present a strong contrast with undisturbed areas. Red Canyon is also crucial winter big game

habitat where elk, that roam the Shoshone National Forest in the summer, concentrate to take

advantage of the broad, windswept slopes in the ACEC.

Under all alternatives limitations on surface disturbance would result in beneficial impacts to Red

Canyon ACEC values, including viewshed and elk habitat. Conversely, surface disturbance would

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1152 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

adversely impact ACEC values. Since the ACEC is an important elk habitat, the degree of impact,

including the frequency and amount of human presence, is also a factor beyond the mere loss of

vegetation as elk are wary of human activity. All alternatives would maintain forage for 500 elk.

All alternatives identify the Red Canyon ACEC as an area in which to use full suppression fire.

In all cases, fuels treatment is responsive to the concerns of the many private landowners in the

WUI who desire the beneficial impacts to visual resources of junipers against the red rocks. Fuels

treatment objectives are the same under all alternatives although the alternatives vary in the

amount of the planning area that would be treated each year.

All alternatives manage the NNL portion of the ACEC as VRM Class I, which preserves

the existing character of the landscape from development. VRM of the rest of the ACEC

(approximately 13,004 acres) varies by alternative.

The alternatives vary in their management of forest resources and the use of clear-cuts as

silviculture techniques. However, there would likely be little difference in impacts from the

different management because of the very low demand for saw timber.

Although the alternatives vary in the locatable minerals management, there would be no

difference in impacts because no locatable mineral potential has been identified, so no impacts

can be analyzed.

All alternatives would allow livestock grazing in the Red Canyon ACEC.

None of the alternatives manage waterway segments in the ACEC as eligible or suitable for

inclusion in the NWSRS.

4.7.5.3.3.3. Alternative A

4.7.5.3.3.3.1. Program Management

The 1987 RMP and EIS ROD designated Red Canyon as an ACEC for wildlife (elk) and scenic

values (see the Lander ACEC Report [BLM 2010e] for detailed discussion of these values).

Management actions for the benefit of wildlife benefit elk that winter in the ACEC but migrate

to the surrounding mountainous areas. Limitations on surface disturbance would benefit ACEC

wildlife and visual resources. Vegetation would be managed to provide forage for a population

of 500 elk.

4.7.5.3.3.3.2. Resources

Air quality, soil, and water management under Alternative A, with standard stipulations, would

result in beneficial impacts to ACEC values by limiting surface disturbance. Forest management

could result in adverse impacts to ACEC values but these impacts are unlikely to occur.

Alternative A includes vegetative treatments in the Red Canyon ACEC for the benefit of wildlife

forage. These treatments would result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife

habitat by contributing to vegetative diversity and preventing INNS encroachment. However,

mechanical vegetative treatments would result in a short-term adverse impact to visual resources,

which could be mitigated by careful feathering of the edges.

Wildlife management under Alternative A would generally benefit ACEC values, including

seasonal travel closures to protect large concentrations of wintering big game and the maintenance

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1153

of elk forage. Alternative A would result in limited protections for greater sage-grouse although

8,392 acres are in the Wyoming Governor's Core Area. Wildlife management under Alternative A

does not prohibit fences, which would cause an adverse impact by removing vegetation, creating

livestock concentration areas, fragmenting habitat, and impeding migration. Much of the Red

Canyon ACEC wildlife migrates between winters in the ACEC and summer habitat in the

Shoshone National Forest, so fences result in an important adverse impact. However fences can

also improve riparian-wetland areas resulting in a long-term benefit to the elk if the fences are

ultimately removed and livestock grazing in the riparian-wetland area is appropriately managed.

Buffers around sage-grouse leks benefit ACEC values by limiting surface disturbance.

VRM under Alternative A would benefit visual resources in the ACEC by retaining the existing

character of the landscape within and adjacent to the ACEC with Class II management, which

allows activities that can be seen but do not attract the attention of the casual observer. This

management limits surface-disturbing activities, which would beneficially impact both wildlife

and visual resources.

4.7.5.3.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A oil and gas management in the Red Canyon ACEC is subject to NSO restrictions,

which would limit loss of vegetation and avoids habitat fragmentation and degradation of visual

resources. Alternative A would not withdraw the ACEC from locatable mineral entry, but there

is no identified potential for locatable minerals in the ACEC. A Plan of Operations would be

required for small mining disturbances.

Alternative A would not close the ACEC to phosphate leasing, but restricts phosphate recovery

to protect sensitive visual resources and crucial wildlife habitat. In the absence of an explicit

prohibition on surface occupancy for phosphate mines, any proposal for a lease would require

analysis of potential impacts, which would include stripping of all vegetation and overburden and

surface removal of the phosphate (strip mining). It is likely, but not mandated, that leases would

be denied because damages to the area would be visible from the surrounding areas and would

have the potential to threaten elk herds. Under Alternative A, there are no limits on phosphate

recovery in adjoining areas visible from the ACEC or utilized by elk for migration. Both the

ACEC and adjoining lands have phosphate potential.

Alternative A does not close the ACEC to mineral materials disposal, which would prevent

adverse impacts to wildlife and visual resources. However, any proposals for material disposals

would be assessed on a case-by-case basis to avoid adverse impacts to values of concern.

Alternative A avoidance of the ACEC for major ROWs and corridors would result in adverse

impacts to ACEC values should disturbances occur. ROWs are not excluded under Alternative A,

if there was no alternative location for an ROW, it would be authorized. No such ROW potential

or demand has been forecast under current management because of avoidance of both Red Canyon

and the Lander Slope since 1987. However, if private lands or Shoshone National Forest lands

were developed for wind energy, it is unlikely that transmission lines could avoid the ACEC.

Under Alternative A, recreation management in the ACEC would support ACEC values. There

are no RMZs in the ACEC. Alternative A closes the ACEC to over-snow vehicle travel and winter

sport activities to protect elk in the ACEC. Motorized travel is limited to designated roads and

trails but has been managed as limited to existing roads and trails, a more adverse management

that allows the use of more existing roads and trails.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1154 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.3.3.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative A, the Little Popo Agie River is managed to maintain its free flowing and

outstanding characteristics which would beneficially impact ACEC values by limiting surface

disturbance.

4.7.5.3.3.4. Alternative B

4.7.5.3.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative B is more protective of wildlife and visual resources than Alternative A. Management

would limit or prohibit substantially more mineral resource development and limit livestock

grazing to light rather than moderate as under Alternative A. Alternative B designates the same

area as an ACEC as Alternative A, but with more restrictive management of activities allowed in

the ACEC.

4.7.5.3.3.4.2. Resources

Management of air quality, soil, and water resources under Alternative B would benefit wildlife

and visual resources by limiting erosion and fugitive dust to a greater extent than Alternative A.

Alternative B implements a more proactive approach to reduce emissions and improve air quality,

which could improve the view of the ACEC from Highway 28.

Following a fire or a timber sale, Alternative B would result in more beneficial impacts to forest

resources in the ACEC than Alternative A, because Alternative B mandates forest replanting. The

impact of this management cannot be analyzed because forest sales would not be likely under

any alternative, and full fire suppression would be allowed under all alternatives. Alternative B

management of insect and disease outbreaks likely would result in more short-term adverse

impacts than Alternative A, because treatment would be implemented only to protect human

health and safety. This short-term loss of forest health would result in a short-term adverse

impact to wildlife habitat and could result in reduced visual resource values. Alternative B

fuels management would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, but perhaps more beneficial

because more areas would be treated (see below under livestock grazing management).

Alternative B manages grassland and shrubland communities to support a diversity of wildlife and

game, which would result in a more beneficial impact to wildlife than Alternative A. Alternative

B maintains forage for 500 elk, similar to Alternative A.

Alternative B has the potential to result in more beneficial impacts to vegetation than Alternative

A because Alternative B is also more proactive in addressing the link between BLM-permitted

activities and the spread of INNS. The presence of invasive plant species also adversely impacts

visual resources, not only because of the different appearance of invasive plant species than native

vegetation, but also because of the more intense fire regimes associated with heavy invasive plant

species infestation and the resulting adverse impacts to visual resources.

Wildlife management under Alternative B is more protective of ACEC wildlife values than

Alternative A. Livestock forage would be adjusted as needed to support elk forage and vegetation

management would emphasize wildlife needs. Alternative B does not allow new fences and

could remove some existing fences to improve animal movement. Visual resources management

under Alternative B is the same as Alternative A, and impacts would be similar. Sage-grouse

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1155

management buffers leks with a larger buffer than in Alternative A, which increases the acres

closed to surface disturbance.

4.7.5.3.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Leasable and mineral materials management under Alternative B would be more protective of

ACEC values than Alternative A. Alternative B would close the ACEC to phosphate and all

mineral leasing and all mineral materials disposals.

Management of wind-energy development and major ROWs and corridors would be substantially

more beneficial to ACEC values under Alternative B, because the alternative excludes these realty

actions. Even if no other route was available, the realty action would be denied under Alternative

B thus avoiding the potentially serious adverse impacts to ACEC values under Alternative A.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative B would result in fewer adverse impacts to

ACEC values than Alternative A, because Alternative B manages grazing for rangeland health

by over time reducing utilization to light use and does not allow rangeland infrastructure. This

management would slowly reduce adverse impacts to vegetation from the heavier Alternative

A utilization, and would avoid livestock concentrations near water developments and fence

lines. It is possible that these beneficial impacts to ACEC values would be offset, in some part,

by the likelihood that light utilization could be achieved only by some additional fencing of

private lands. Because livestock grazing objectives would be achieved by stocking rates and not

infrastructure under Alternative B, triple the amount of acres planning area wide would receive

vegetation treatments in comparison to Alternative A (1,500 acres per year versus 500 acres). It is

likely that some of this additional vegetation treatment would occur in the ACEC.

Recreation management under Alternative B would be more protective of wildlife values because

the alternative closes the ACEC to human presence in winter, rather than just closing it to sport

activities and over-snow vehicles, which potentially could result in human activities that stress

wintering elk. Alternative B limits travel management to designated roads and trails, with

implementation-level planning to meet the management requirements. This would result in

beneficial impacts to ACEC values, but the difference from Alternative A would be evident only

over the long term.

4.7.5.3.3.4.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative B, the NWSRS-eligible segment on the Little Popo Agie River is recommended

as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS. Management prescriptions for the WSR are the same

as for the remainder of the ACEC and would not result in additional beneficial or adverse

impacts to the ACEC.

4.7.5.3.3.5. Alternative C

4.7.5.3.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative C does not designate any portion of the Red Canyon as an ACEC. The area would

be managed with standard stipulations and open to mineral development and ROWs. This

management conforms to the overall emphasis on resource utilization under Alternative C.

The Red Canyon NNL is managed as VRM Class I under all alternatives. Because this VRM

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1156 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

classification would preclude almost all surface disturbance in the NNL, impacts to visual

resources under Alternative C would be limited to the portion of the ACEC outside the NNL.

4.7.5.3.3.5.2. Resources

The Alternative C emphasis on resource uses over physical and biological resources would

result in more adverse impacts to values of concern. Unlike Alternative B, but similar to

Alternative A, Alternative C does not proactively manage air quality and manages soil and water

resources with standard stipulations which can be waived if restrictions would be adequate to

protect the resources. The less restrictive forest management than Alternative B might mean

little if a local demand for timber/biomass products does not materialize. Fuels treatment and

fire management impacts under Alternative C would be the same as under Alternative B, except

for vegetation treatments discussed below under grazing. Grassland and shrubland management

under Alternative C would be less beneficial to wildlife because it emphasizes forage production

for all grazing animals and not, as under Alternative B, for elk and other wildlife.

More areas open to surface disturbance under Alternative C would also result in more adverse

impacts to vegetation than Alternative B because the likelihood of INNS infestation increases

with surface disturbance. The additional acres open to major ROWs and realty actions and the

larger area available for surface disturbance under Alternative C would increase the likelihood

of INNS infestation.

Alternative C wildlife management is similar to Alternative A and would be somewhat more

adverse to ACEC values than Alternative B because forage allocations under Alternative C

emphasize livestock grazing use rather than wildlife and Alternative C has the same sage-grouse

buffer as Alternative A. Alternative C does not limit habitat fragmentation or increase vegetation

by closing roads or limiting the footprint of projects. Although Alternative C does not apply

seasonal protections from oil and gas O&M activities as does Alternative B, this would result in a

minimal impact because there is very low potential for oil and gas in the ACEC. These impacts

are described in more detail in the Biological Resources section.

Under Alternative C, VRM in the areas around the NNL would result in more adverse impacts

to ACEC values than Alternative B, which manages the area outside the NNL with limited

surface disturbance.

4.7.5.3.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Leasable mineral management under Alternative C allows activities that would result in more

adverse impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A or B. Alternative C opens all of the ACEC to

mineral leasing with surface occupancy. While the ACEC has a low potential for oil and gas, it

does have extensive phosphate resources. Marked adverse impacts from phosphate development

would be likely under Alternative C, including stripping of vegetation and overburden to reach

the mineral resource (strip mining). If underground mining occurred, there would be less adverse

impacts to vegetation, but the habitat fragmentation associated with access roads, facilities, and

increased motor vehicles would still occur. The loss of habitat for elk that winter in the ACEC

would be a serious adverse impact because elk are wary of human activities and would avoid

the area. Because there is no readily available winter habitat for the large number of elk that

summer in the Shoshone National Forest, phosphate mining in the Red Canyon ACEC would

threaten the life of the herd. Major adverse impacts to visual resources would also be likely

under Alternative C. The location of mineralization is on the portion of the ACEC easily visible

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1157

from the surrounding communities, the scenic lookout along Highway 28, and particularly, the

residences in the foothills. Surface mining of phosphate would remove all vegetation and create a

pit to a depth necessary to obtain all of the minerals. As with the iron mine farther up Route 28,

phosphate mines would be visible from most observation points in the surrounding communities.

Under Alternative C, geophysical exploration with resulting adverse impacts to wildlife and

visual resources, due to vegetation and soil compaction, would be authorized. However, it is

unlikely there will be much demand for geophysical exploration in light of the low potential for

oil and gas. Impacts from geophysical exploration would likely be short-term.

Alternative C management of major ROWs and corridors, including wind-energy development

and transmission lines, would result in substantially more adverse impacts to visual resources

than Alternative B, which excludes these developments. Portions of the ACEC and adjoining

lands, including private lands, have high potential for wind-energy development and Alternative

C opens the ACEC to wind-energy development. This industrialization of the area would result

in a substantial adverse impact to ACEC visual and wildlife resources in the short term and

long term, with potential loss of the elk herd.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative C would result in impacts to ACEC values

similar to Alternative A with slightly less beneficial impacts than Alternative B. See the

Biological Resources section for more information on the impacts of livestock grazing on

wildlife. Alternative C would result in increased infrastructure to concentrate livestock (which

would adversely impact vegetation). Additionally, fences could fragment habitat and migration

corridors. Impeding wildlife movement would adversely impact elk that winter in the ACEC and

move to habitat in the Shoshone National Forest in summer. However, part of the adverse impact

of additional infrastructure could be offset by the Alternative B potential increase in the numbers

of fences on private lands to reduce livestock utilization. Vegetation treatment under Alternative

C would be similar to Alternative A, with fewer beneficial impacts to vegetation and viewshed.

Alternative C recreation management would result in many more adverse impacts to wildlife than

Alternative A or B, because Alternative C places no winter limitations on over-snow vehicles or

sporting activities. This would stress the wintering elk population. There are no areas managed

as RMZs under Alternative C. Impacts to the ACEC from travel management would be slightly

more adverse under Alternative C and similar to impacts under Alternative A. These impacts are

anticipated to be long-term.

4.7.5.3.3.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative C has no special designations other than the NNL that is common to all of the

alternatives. There is no limit on development in the Little Popo Agie River.

4.7.5.3.3.6. Alternative D

4.7.5.3.3.6.1. Program Management

Alternative D designates the same ACEC area as alternatives A and B. Alternative D management

of Red Canyon is similar to management under Alternative B including pursuing withdrawals

from locatable minerals and excluding ROWs, and would result in somewhat more beneficial

impacts than Alternative A. Alternative D would be substantially more beneficial to ACEC values

than Alternative C. Resource values are emphasized and resource uses are limited if adverse

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1158 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

impacts to ACEC values would result. Required Design Features would reduce the adverse

impacts associated with surface-disturbing activities.

4.7.5.3.3.6.2. Resources

Alternative D management of air quality, soil, and water would benefit wildlife and visual

resources by limiting erosion and fugitive dust in a way that is similar to Alternative A.

Alternative D includes more restrictive management of activities that could degrade water quality

than Alternative A or C that would likely reduce surface disturbance. Following a fire or a timber

sale, Alternative D, similar to Alternative A, would result in fewer beneficial impacts to forest

resources in the Red Canyon ACEC than Alternative B or Alternative C, because Alternative D

mandates forest replanting only after natural processes do not result in regeneration. Alternative D

management to protect forest health from insect and disease outbreaks is the same as Alternative

A, and would be less likely to result in short-term adverse impacts than Alternative B.

All alternatives use an IPM approach to INNS in the Red Canyon ACEC, although, under

Alternative D chemical treatment is allowed only if other methods are not successful. While this

could result in beneficial impacts to water quality similar to Alternative B, Alternative D would

result in more adverse impacts by being less effective in treating INNS than alternatives A and

C, which do not limit the use of chemical treatments. The presence of invasive plant species

would adversely impact visual resources because of the different appearance of invasive plant

species than native vegetation and the more intense fire regimes associated with heavy invasive

plant species infestation.

Alternative D wildlife management would result in more beneficial impacts to Red Canyon

ACEC wildlife values than Alternative A, substantially more than Alternative C, and similar

impacts to Alternative B. Alternative D would limit surface disturbance in the 8,392 acres of the

Core Area. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D is more protective of visual resources in the

Red Canyon ACEC than alternatives A and C because Alternative D would manage all of the

ACEC as VRM Class II (other than the NNL, which would be managed under all alternatives

as VRM Class I), which restricts more surface disturbance that would adversely impact wildlife

and visual resources.

ACEC values would further benefit from management of the area to the east of the ACEC in the

Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area, which has strong constraints on minerals and ROWs

for the protection of wildlife, heritage, and viewshed values. This management would result

in beneficial impacts similar to those in Alternative B and much more beneficial than under

alternatives A and C.

4.7.5.3.3.6.3. Resource Uses

Leasable and mineral materials management under Alternative D would result in more beneficial

impacts to Red Canyon ACEC values than Alternative C, but somewhat fewer than Alternative

B. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D would close the ACEC to phosphate leasing, mineral

materials disposals, and geophysical exploration. As under Alternative A, the Alternative D

ACEC would manage oil and gas development with an NSO stipulation.

As discussed for Alternative B, the Alternative D closure to phosphate leasing would result in

more beneficial impacts than the management prescriptions under Alternative A, which does not

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1159

expressly close the ACEC to phosphate leasing. In this regard, Alternative D would result in the

same beneficial impacts to the ACEC as Alternative B.

Alternative D management of wind-energy development and major ROWs and corridors, would

result in more beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A, because Alternative D, like

Alternative B, makes the ACEC an ROW exclusion area. Livestock grazing management under

Alternative D would result in fewer adverse impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A, because

Alternative D allows range improvement projects only if they would enhance ACEC values. This

would result in more beneficial impacts to wildlife than Alternative B, which prohibits range

improvements of any kind. Grazing utilization levels under Alternative D are the same as under

alternatives A and C. Through out the planning area, range infrastructure would be built which

would result in the same acres of vegetation treatment as alternatives A and C, and approximately

one-third of Alternative B. If this results in fewer acres treated in the ACEC, it would adversely

impact both habitat and visual resources.

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D travel management would be more beneficial to wildlife

and scenic values than Alternative A. Although Alternative A limits travel to designated roads

and trails with seasonal restrictions, this management has not been implemented in a way that can

be enforced. Alternative B and D travel designations are followed with implementation-level

planning, which would deter user-created routes and unauthorized road expansions that have

been allowed to proliferate under current management (Alternative A) or would continue under

Alternative C.

Like alternatives A and B, Alternative D does not allow over-snow motorized vehicle use, which

would result in a beneficial impact to elk and avoid adverse impacts that would occur under

Alternative C. Although Alternative D includes a shorter closure period to human presence

(allowing nonmotorized use such as hiking after April 30), this would not result in more adverse

impacts than Alternative A or Alternative B, because motorized vehicle use in May and June is

the primary activity that would adversely impact saturated soils and damage vegetation.

4.7.5.3.3.6.4. Special Designations

There are no special designations in the Red Canyon area under Alternative D, other than the

ACEC designation. The Little Popo Agie is not specially managed.

4.7.5.3.4. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – Dubois Badlands

4.7.5.3.4.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternatives A and B would designate 4,903 acres as an ACEC to protect fragile soils and scenic

views. Alternative C does not designate the area as an ACEC and would manage it with standard

stipulations. Alternative D adds 342 acres outside of the WSA to the East Fork ACEC and would

not designate the remaining 4561 acres as an ACEC. Alternative D would manage the WSA in

accordance with BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas.

There is very little difference in impacts among the alternatives because of the WSA. The

only area of difference is in the management of the 342 acres that are within an ACEC under

alternatives A, B, and D (where the ACEC is East Fork), but managed in accordance with standard

stipulations under Alternative C. Management of the WSA under all alternatives (including travel

management) would be the same and impacts would be similar.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1160 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative C would result in somewhat more adverse impacts because it has limited protections

for the non-WSA portion of the ACEC. However, there are limited potential adverse impacts to

these lands. Adverse impacts are not anticipated under alternatives A, B, or D.

Beneficial impacts from management would be similar among all four alternatives because of

the WSA.

4.7.5.3.4.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The Dubois Badlands provide prominent views along Highway 287 (the main route to

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks) and the town of Dubois. Extensive surface

disturbance would be highly visible and present a strong contrast with undisturbed areas. The

extremely erodible sandstone along the southern edge of the ACEC can tolerate almost no human

disturbance. Consequently, any surface-disturbing activity would adversely impact sensitive soils

and visual resources in the ACEC.

The majority of the Dubois Badlands ACEC, 93 percent, is managed under BLM Manual 6330,

Management of Wilderness Study Areas because it is located within a WSA. The more restrictive

management (whether under BLM Manual 6330 or ACEC management) would be applied.

Under all alternatives, the WSA portion would be managed as VRM Class I and closed to

motorized vehicle travel, with other protections against adverse impacts from surface disturbance,

including mineral developments (see the Wilderness Study Areas section for more information).

The practical effect of the WSA is that there is very little difference among the alternatives

with regard to specific management actions.

All alternatives identify only the parts of the ACEC outside the WSA as areas in which full

suppression fire management should be utilized, in accordance with the provisions of BLM

Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas. The different management prescriptions

under each alternative for forestry and silvicultural practices would not result in different impacts

to ACEC values, because the area lacks forests and woodlands. There would not be any difference

in INNS management impacts among the alternatives.

Notwithstanding the travel closure, unauthorized OHV use of the Dubois Badlands ACEC has

resulted in substantial adverse impacts to the area by disturbing and compacting soils, and

damaging or destroying vegetation. None of the alternatives include management that would

reverse this damage during the planning period.

No locatable minerals have been identified as occurring in the Dubois Badlands ACEC. Therefore,

although the alternatives vary in their locatable mineral management, there is not likely to be

any difference in impacts among the alternatives as a result of this difference in management.

Accordingly, locatable minerals are not further analyzed.

Although the alternatives vary in their ROW and realty management, the impacts of these

differences would not vary by alternative, because it is not reasonable to assume there would

be demand for ROWs outside of the WSA. Accordingly, ROWs, including wind-energy

development, are not further discussed.

All alternatives manage the ACEC as open to livestock grazing, but vary in the use of funds for

range improvement projects or increased vegetation treatment. However, since so much of the

ACEC is under the provisions of BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas,

there is no meaningful difference among the alternatives in impacts from these differences.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1161

Similarly, the different motorized travel management outside the WSA, would result in no

difference in impacts among alternatives.

4.7.5.3.4.3. Alternative A

4.7.5.3.4.3.1. Program Management

The 1987 RMP and EIS ROD designated the Dubois Badlands as an ACEC for sensitive soils and

scenic values (see ACEC Report for detailed discussion of these values). Management actions

from other programs that protect physical and biological values would avoid adverse impacts

to ACEC visual resources and sensitive soils by limiting surface disturbance. Management that

results in beneficial impacts to wildlife supports ACEC values.

4.7.5.3.4.3.2. Resources

Alternative A manages soil, water, and riparian-wetland values with standard stipulations, which

would beneficially impact ACEC values. VRM management would beneficially impact visual

resources and sensitive soils in the ACEC by limiting surface disturbance outside the WSA, and

on lands adjacent to the ACEC with VRM Class II management.

4.7.5.3.4.3.3. Resource Uses

Oil and gas management in the ACEC outside the WSA is subject to an NSO restriction under

Alternative A, which would limit vegetation loss, and avoid habitat fragmentation and adverse

impacts to visual resources. Alternative A manages the ACEC as closed to mineral materials

disposals, although no closure has been identified because of sensitive soils and the requirements

under BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas, which would avoid adverse

impacts to sensitive soils and visual resources. Alternative A would manage recreation as part

of the planning area-wide ERMA, with no focus on visitor services to provide a recreational

experience in the ACEC.

4.7.5.3.4.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative A does not include any other special designations in the area with the exception of the

WSA, which is common to all alternatives.

4.7.5.3.4.4. Alternative B

4.7.5.3.4.4.1. Program Management

Alternative B designates the same number of acres as ACEC as Alternative A, but would increase

management prescriptions for the benefit of the same values of concern.

4.7.5.3.4.4.2. Resources

Management of air quality, soil, and water resources under Alternative B, would reduce adverse

impacts to sensitive soils and visual resources by reducing the amount of surface disturbance.

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative B management would avoid adverse impacts to sensitive

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1162 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

soils and visual resources. Visual resources management under Alternative B is the same as

Alternative A, so impacts would be similar.

4.7.5.3.4.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B management of leasable and mineral materials is more protective of ACEC values

outside the WSA than Alternative A, but the beneficial impacts are unlikely to differ from those

impacts under Alternative A.

There is no special recreation management for the ACEC under Alternative B. However,

recreation management would be more focused on protecting existing values from change,

therefore, resulting in more beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A.

4.7.5.3.4.4.4. Special Designations

The WSA is a special designation within the Dubois Badlands ACEC.

4.7.5.3.4.5. Alternative C

4.7.5.3.4.5.1. Program Management

Alternative C does not designate any portion of the Dubois Badlands as an ACEC. Instead, the

area outside the WSA would be managed with standard stipulations. Alternative C would result in

the fewest beneficial impacts and the most adverse impacts to ACEC values of any alternative.

4.7.5.3.4.5.2. Resources

The Alternative C emphasis on resource uses over physical and biological resources would result

in minimal impact to visual resources in the Dubois Badlands ACEC because development is

limited by management requirements under BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study

Areas. For areas outside of the WSA, Alternative C management would be similar to Alternative

A, with very minor differences in adverse impacts as identified under Alternative B.

Fuels treatment and fire management impacts under Alternative C would be similar to Alternative

B, except to the limited extent that fewer vegetation treatments might be done in the area outside

of the WSA, because available funds would be utilized for range infrastructure projects. This

difference would not be expected to result in any noticeable difference in impacts to the ACEC.

VRM under Alternative C would be more adverse to Dubois Badlands ACEC values than under

Alternative B for areas outside the WSA, because this alternative (VRM Class III) would allow

more activities that would contrast with visual resources in the area, even if they would attract the

attention of viewers.

4.7.5.3.4.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C management of leasable minerals would result in slightly more adverse impacts to

Dubois Badlands ACEC values than Alternative A or B. Alternative C would open the non-WSA

portions of the ACEC to leasing with surface occupancy for all mineral activities and allows

geophysical exploration. However, it is not likely that the limited restrictions on minerals

management under Alternative C would result in development, because the non-WSA portions of

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1163

the ACEC have very low potential for minerals. Therefore, adverse impacts are anticipated to

be similar to Alternative A or B during the planning period.

Alternative C limits travel to existing roads and trails outside the WSA, which would result

in the potential for substantial adverse impacts to ACEC values. OHV usage in the area has

caused resource damage in the past and introduced new “illegal” routes. Not designating travel to

specific roads would reduce BLM's ability to enforce its travel management and would make it

more difficult to prevent new user-created roads and trails. This difference in management could

have increasingly greater long-term adverse impacts over time.

4.7.5.3.4.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not include any special designations in the Dubois Badlands other that the

WSA, which is common to all alternatives.

4.7.5.3.4.6. Alternative D

4.7.5.3.4.6.1. Program Management

Similar to Alternative C, Alternative D does not designate the Dubois Badlands as an ACEC.

However, Alternative D designates the 342 acres outside the WSA, but within alternatives A and

B ACEC boundaries, as part of the East Fork ACEC.

4.7.5.3.4.6.2. Resources

See the description of impacts to ACEC values from management of resources under Alternative

D for the East Fork ACEC.

4.7.5.3.4.6.3. Resource Uses

See the description of impacts to ACEC values from management of resource uses under

Alternative D for the East Fork ACEC.

4.7.5.3.4.6.4. Special Designations

There is no special designation management under Alternative D other than the WSA.

See the description of impacts to ACEC values from management of the non-WSA portions of the

Dubois Badlands under Alternative D for the East Fork ACEC.

4.7.5.3.5. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – Whiskey Mountain

4.7.5.3.5.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternatives A, B, and D, designate 8,776 acres as an ACEC to protect bighorn sheep habitat.

Alternative C does not designate the area as an ACEC and would manage it with standard

stipulations.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1164 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative C has the most adverse impacts to ACEC values because it manages the area with

standard stipulations which would not preclude surface disturbance that would adversely impact

bighorn sheep. Alternative A has fewer adverse impacts because ROWs must avoid the area if

possible and the area is withdrawn from locatable minerals. Alternative A manages oil and gas

with NSO stipulations but this difference is only minor because the area has little to no potential.

Alternatives B and D have very similar management and similar minor adverse impacts except that

Alternative B closes the entire area to livestock grazing. However, Alternative D allows grazing

in 2,164 acres which could adversely impact bighorn sheep by reducing forage availability.

4.7.5.3.5.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Whiskey Mountain was designated as an ACEC in the 1987 RMP and EIS ROD for management

as bighorn sheep habitat, with a small portion (519 acres) managed as a WSA in accordance with

BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas. The resident bighorn sheep herd in

the ACEC is nationally known and an important contributor to the tourism economy of Dubois.

Because the ACEC is prominent in the view along Highway 287 (a main route to Yellowstone and

Grand Teton National Parks) and the local community, surface disturbance in the ACEC would be

highly visible and present a strong contrast with undisturbed areas.

While not designated for visual resource values, the presence of the bighorn sheep makes the

area a focus of visitor visual attention. Local tourism is based, in part, on a desire to view the

bighorn sheep in the wild, and the barren sweeps of the ACEC make this possible. Management

that protects the visual setting of the sheep and protects sheep habitat is important from a tourism

standpoint as well as a pure VRM standpoint. However, although Alternative B is more proactive

in its management of air quality than alternatives A, C, and D, the air quality in the Whiskey

Mountain ACEC would be aggressively managed under all alternatives because the ACEC is

near Air Quality Class 1 areas, including wilderness areas and national parks. Therefore, there

would be no difference in impacts to visual resources in the ACEC among the alternatives from

management of air quality.

In general, management actions from other programs designed to protect physical and biological

resources would result in direct beneficial impacts to bighorn sheep by protecting forage and

intact habitat. In general, management actions for other programs that would result in adverse

impacts to physical and biological resources would adversely impact bighorn sheep and their

setting in the ACEC.

Bighorn sheep are extremely sensitive to human presence and disturbances. Management that

avoids surface disturbance and human use would beneficially impact bighorn sheep.

The difference in riparian-wetland setbacks among the alternatives (the setback is larger under

Alternative B than under the other alternatives) would not result in different impacts to the ACEC

because there are no riparian-wetland areas in the ACEC.

Under all alternatives a small part of the ACEC is a WSA managed in accordance with BLM

Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas. Visual resources in the WSA are managed

as VRM Class I under all alternatives. This management protects bighorn sheep and visual

resource values by limiting surface disturbance and resource uses in the WSA. By special

agreement among federal and state agencies, vegetative treatments in the WSA to benefit bighorn

sheep are allowed under all alternatives, so management under BLM Manual 6330 would not

adversely impact the ACEC.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1165

Land near the Whiskey Mountain ACEC was identified as containing wilderness characteristics

due to its remote and scenic qualities. Managing to protect the wilderness values would

beneficially impact ACEC values. The alternatives vary in how the identified lands with

wilderness characteristics are managed.

Other than the WSA common to all alternatives, there is no other special designation management

except the ACEC itself.

Although the alternatives vary in their management actions for air quality, there would not be any

differences in air quality impacts among alternatives because for all alternatives, BLM actions

must meet the higher standards associated with the wilderness areas to the north and south of

the ACEC.

4.7.5.3.5.3. Alternative A

4.7.5.3.5.3.1. Program Management

Alternative A designates the Whiskey Mountain area as an ACEC to protect bighorn sheep

habitat. Existing mineral withdrawals would be extended. Alternative A generally manages to

balance resource protections with resource use. There is no special management for the nearby

lands with wilderness characteristics.

4.7.5.3.5.3.2. Resources

Management that benefits soil and water and other biologic resources would beneficially impact

Whiskey Mountain ACEC bighorn sheep and their visual setting. Lands in the Little Red

Creek Complex near to but not adjoining the ACEC are identified as lands with wilderness

characteristics. These lands are not specially managed, so there would be no beneficial impacts to

the ACEC. However, given the special designation because of bighorn sheep, it is not likely that

substantial disturbance would be allowed in the Little Red Creek Complex, although Alternative

A would not manage it for wilderness characteristics. VRM would beneficially impact visual

resources in the ACEC by limiting surface disturbance and visually intrusive actions.

4.7.5.3.5.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A would close the Whiskey Mountain ACEC to oil and gas development and proposes

to withdraw it from mineral entry. Mineral withdrawals would be extended before they expire if

they were withdrawn for a finite period. This management would limit the loss of vegetation,

avoid habitat fragmentation, avoid degradation of visual resources, and avoid human intrusion

that would result from such development projects. This would result in a highly beneficial impact

to ACEC values.

Alternative A closes most of the ACEC to livestock grazing, but authorizes grazing on 2,203

acres having 57 AUMs. The existing BLM permit is available in spring and fall. This grazing

would adversely impact bighorn sheep, particularly in the fall, when uses by the permitted horses

would reduce forage bighorn sheep need going into winter. In recent years an agreement has

been in place to move the fall grazing portion of the permit to WGFD lands to ensure adequate

forage is available to bighorn sheep.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1166 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative A manages the ACEC as an avoidance areas for major ROWs and corridors, which

would protect ACEC habitat values by retaining vegetation, avoiding habitat fragmentation,

and preserving the viewshed. Because Alternative A does not manage the area as an ROW

exclusion area, if there were no alternative location for a proposed ROW, it would be permitted.

No such ROW potential or demand has been forecast under current management, however, the

ACEC and the areas around it have high wind-energy potential. In light of resource values and

investments made to acquire lands, it is not likely the BLM would grant ROWs and such a permit

would only occur after the preparation of an EIS. Alternative A management reauthorizes the

communications site on BLM Ridge that expires in 2013. Use of the ROW to access the tower for

maintenance would adversely impact bighorn sheep, particularly in fall, winter, and early spring

months, when the sheep are present in the ACEC and dependent on ACEC forage for survival.

4.7.5.3.5.3.4. Special Designations

Other than the Whiskey Mountain ACEC, there are no special designations that would impact the

ACEC values, with the exception of the small portion that is also a WSA. Travel in the WSA, as

in the rest of the ACEC, would be limited to designated roads and trails.

4.7.5.3.5.4. Alternative B

4.7.5.3.5.4.1. Program Management

Alternative B emphasizes wildlife and other resources even if the protective management would

adversely impact or limit development. Alternative B extends withdrawals that would expire with

time and closes the ACEC to livestock grazing. The Alternative B approach would result in more

beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A.

4.7.5.3.5.4.2. Resources

Management of soil and water resources under Alternative B would beneficially impact Whiskey

Mountain ACEC bighorn sheep and their visual setting by limiting erosion, fugitive dust, and by

preventing habitat degradation and fragmentation. Alternative B would manage the Little Red

Creek Complex as non-WSA land with wilderness characteristics and manage it to protect the

naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude which would beneficially impact ACEC

values because it would preclude uses that would contrast with the ACEC visual setting.

Alternative B manages grassland and shrubland communities to support the bighorn sheep

population, which would beneficially impact ACEC values. Vegetative treatments would also

benefit bighorn sheep. Any forestry actions under Alternative B would benefit bighorn sheep,

including in the WSA. In general, Alternative B wildlife management would be more protective

of ACEC wildlife values than Alternative A.

4.7.5.3.5.4.3. Resource Uses

Locatable minerals management under Alternative B would result in the same beneficial impact

to ACEC values as Alternative A by renewing the existing withdrawals. Alternative B closes

the ACEC to mineral materials disposals, but this would have the same beneficial impact as the

informal closure under Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1167

Alternative B would close the ACEC to oil and gas leasing, while Alternative A applies NSO

stipulations. The difference in impacts between alternatives A and B is minor, because the area

has no potential for CBNG and very low potential for conventional oil and gas. Alternative

B closes the ACEC to phosphate leasing; the area is open under Alternative A. Alternative

B management would result in more beneficial impacts to ACEC wildlife and scenic values

because the area has phosphate resources. While it is not likely that phosphate leasing, a BLM

discretionary activity, would be allowed under Alternative A, Alternative B closes the ACEC,

thereby removing any possibility of leasing. Phosphate mining would have an adverse impact to

bighorn sheep due to human presence and the removal of vegetation.

Alternative B management of wind-energy development and major ROWs and corridors would be

somewhat more beneficial to ACEC values than Alternative A, because Alternative B manages

the ACEC as an exclusion area for these realty actions. Even if no other routes are available

including ROWs and corridors, the realty action would be denied under Alternative B. Under

Alternative A, it is possible that a ROW would be allowed. However, there is little difference

between the impacts of the two alternatives because the demand for a ROW is low. Alternative B

does not renew the lease for the communications site on BLM Ridge. The site represents a visual

intrusion into the bighorn sheep setting, and regular maintenance increases the human presence

during fall, winter, and early spring seasons, when the sheep depend most on the ACEC habitat.

Alternative B livestock grazing management would be more beneficial to bighorn sheep because

it closes the allotment in the ACEC to livestock grazing, allowing it to be used by the bighorn

sheep in the fall, an important time for the bighorn sheep to feed before winter. The primary

difference between alternatives B and A is that while fall grazing is allowed on the allotment

under Alternative A, recently, the operator has grazed on WGFD lands in the fall. However, this

practice may not continue.

Alternative B recreation management would be more protective of wildlife values because the

Dubois Mill Site near the ACEC is not open to motorized recreation and guarantees a primitive

recreation experience. Under Alternative B, the Dubois Mill Site is managed as a community

SRMA for nonmotorized recreation. Although there is a potential adverse impact by bringing

more recreationists closer to bighorn sheep, which are wary of human presence and can

experience adverse impacts from recreation activities, the more likely result would be to have the

nonmotorized recreation occur at lower elevations by town residents and not have recreational

activities advance into the bighorn sheep habitat. Alternative B would be more protective of

ACEC values by closing the Dubois Mill Site to cross-country mechanized travel than Alternative

A, which manages the area as open to such travel.

The impacts of travel management under Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A.

4.7.5.3.5.4.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative B, the only special designation other than the Whiskey Mountain ACEC is the

WSA common to all alternatives. Under Alternative B, the WSA would be closed to motorized

and mechanized travel which beneficially impacts bighorn sheep by reducing human presence

and travel disruption.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1168 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.5.5. Alternative C

4.7.5.3.5.5.1. Program Management

Alternative C does not designate the Whiskey Mountain area as an ACEC. Standard stipulations

are applied to authorized activities. Alternative C emphasizes resource use, and protects wildlife,

such as bighorn sheep, at minimal levels. Bighorn sheep are not considered a BLM sensitive

species, so there are no standard stipulations for their protection. The area is open to oil and gas

leasing with surface occupancy, and mineral withdrawals are allowed to expire.

4.7.5.3.5.5.2. Resources

The Alternative C emphasis on resource uses over physical and biological resources would

result in more adverse impacts to bighorn sheep in the Whiskey Mountain ACEC. Alternative C

manages soil and water with standard stipulations.

Alternative C grassland and shrubland management would be less beneficial to wildlife because

it emphasizes forage production for all grazing animals and not, as under Alternative B, for

bighorn sheep. Alternative C vegetative treatment also emphasizes forage, and not ecological

diversity or wildlife needs.

Alternative C does not manage lands with wilderness characteristics in the Little Red Creek

Complex specifically to preserve their wilderness characteristics. Therefore, there would be no

beneficial impact to bighorn sheep. It is possible that this approach to the Little Red Creek

Complex could adversely impact bighorn sheep if the Little Red Creek Complex is utilized to

access the Shoshone National Forest Wilderness.

Alternative C VRM would result in more adverse impacts to ACEC values than Alternative

B because outside of the WSA, Alternative C allows development that would contrast with

the existing landscape. This management would result in a substantial potential for surface

disturbance and disruptive activity that would adversely impact bighorn sheep and their visual

setting if there were a demand for it.

4.7.5.3.5.5.3. Resource Uses

Locatable and leasable minerals management under Alternative C would result in more adverse

impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A or Alternative B. Alternative C opens the non-WSA

portions of the ACEC to leasing with surface occupancy. No Plan of Operations is required under

Alternative C for locatable mineral exploration on less than 5 acres. As a result the BLM would

have little ability to limit adverse impacts to soil, vegetation, water quality, and visual resources

from mineral exploration. Initially, these adverse impacts would not occur in most of the ACEC,

but as mineral withdrawals expire, there could be additional adverse impacts to bighorn sheep.

Although potential is low, Limestone Kiln Gulch could have some potential for phosphate and

limestone. Alternative C allows geophysical exploration, which would adversely impact wildlife

and visual resources due to vegetation and soil compaction.

Alternative C management of major ROWs and corridors, including wind-energy development

and transmission lines, could result in substantially more adverse impacts to visual resources than

under Alternative B, which excludes these developments. It is not likely that there would be a

strong demand for major ROWs in light of the protections afforded by the adjoining Wilderness

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1169

designation. However, demand for access to the area across BLM-administered land could arise

in the future, particularly as the population of Dubois grows. Like Alternative A, Alternative C

management would reauthorize the communications site on BLM Ridge that will expire in 2013.

Use of the ROW to access the tower for maintenance would adversely impact bighorn sheep,

particularly in fall, winter, and early spring months, when the sheep are present in the ACEC and

depend on ACEC forage for survival.

Travel management for the nearby Dubois Mill Site is the same under Alternative C as under

Alternative A, which would allow motorized travel on existing roads and trails. This would result

in far fewer beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative B, which closes the area. There

is demand for motorized vehicle access to BLM-administered land from the Dubois Mill site, so it

is likely that motorized use would result in substantial adverse impacts to ACEC values.

Alternative C would allow livestock grazing on the allotment during both the spring and fall

seasons resulting in adverse impacts to ACEC values very similar to Alternative A, with more

adverse impacts than under Alternative B. Additional range infrastructure would not be precluded

but the demand for such development is likely low.

Recreation management under Alternative C, like Alternative A, would have adverse impacts to

bighorn sheep because motorized use is emphasized, rather than the more beneficial impacts of

nonmotorized recreation under Alternative B. Management for the nearby Dubois Mill Site also

allows motorized use and cross-country mechanized (bicycle) travel and would, therefore, result

in more adverse impacts than Alternative B from this type of use.

4.7.5.3.5.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not designate Whiskey Mountain as an ACEC. The WSA travel management

would be the same as Alternative A, with the same minor adverse impacts to bighorn sheep.

4.7.5.3.5.6. Alternative D

4.7.5.3.5.6.1. Program Management

Alternative D designates the same area as Alternative A as an ACEC. In general, Alternative D

management protects resources of priority concern, such as bighorn sheep. Alternative D closes

the entire Dubois area to oil and gas leasing, and the ACEC would be closed to all mineral leasing

and excluded from major ROW development. This management would result in substantial

beneficial impacts to ACEC values.

4.7.5.3.5.6.2. Resources

Alternative D management of soil and water resources would benefit bighorn sheep by limiting

erosion and fugitive dust. Alternative D would manage 4,954 acres as non-WSA land with

wilderness characteristics to protect their wilderness character. This management would

beneficially impact bighorn sheep because it restricts motorized vehicle use and prohibits

surface-disturbing activities. This management, which is the same as Alternative B except over

a slightly smaller area, would be more beneficial to ACEC values than alternatives A and C,

particularly with regard to motorized use.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1170 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Management of grassland and shrubland communities under Alternative D is the same as under

Alternative A, which is to meet NRCS Ecological Site Guide objectives that would beneficially

impact bighorn sheep by supporting habitat. All alternatives use an IPM approach to INNS in the

ACEC, although Alternative D allows chemical treatments only if other methods are unsuccessful.

Alternatives B and D are also more proactive in addressing the link between BLM-permitted

activities and the spread of INNS, which would avoid some of the adverse impacts that could

result under alternatives A and C.

Alternative D wildlife management for the Dubois area would have more beneficial impacts to

bighorn sheep because the entire area would be closed to oil and gas leasing for the protection

of special status species. This management would result in less human contact and surface

disturbance throughout the area which would benefit the ACEC bighorn sheep that travel in and

out of the ACEC. Similarly, although Alternative D general wildlife management is the same as

Alternative A (regarding allowing roads in crucial winter range), it is very unlikely that there

would be a demand for any kind of ROW, or that the BLM would grant one under Alternative A,

B, or D, in contrast with Alternative C.

Alternatives A, B, and D, all limit roads and fences for the benefit of bighorn sheep, although

Alternative A would result in slightly more adverse impacts because it retains the existing pasture

fence. Alternative C does not limit roads or fences in bighorn sheep habitat, so the adverse

impacts associated with this type of habitat fragmentation and surface disturbance would occur

under Alternative C.

Alternative D VRM would result in similar beneficial impacts to Alternative B. This would avoid

the adverse impacts that would result from more less restrictive VRM, which would allow more

visual intrusions into the ACEC and more human presence.

4.7.5.3.5.6.3. Resource Uses

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D leasable and mineral materials management would result

in more beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A. Alternatives B and D close the

ACEC to phosphate leasing, mineral materials disposals, and geophysical exploration. Like

Alternative B, Alternative D closes the ACEC to oil and gas development. In the locatable

mineral program, Alternative D would result in the same beneficial impacts to ACEC values as

alternatives A and B, as these alternatives withdraw the entire ACEC.

Alternative D management of wind-energy development and major ROWs and corridors would

result in more beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A, since Alternative D

manages the ACEC as an exclusion area. Unlike Alternative B, Alternative D closes only one

pasture of the allotment in the ACEC to livestock grazing and allows higher utilization levels —

closing a total of 28 AUMs. This would be more beneficial than Alternative A, which authorizes

57 AUMs, but less beneficial than Alternative B which closes 57 AUMs. It is not likely that any

range improvement projects would be authorized under Alternative D.

Recreation management under Alternative D would beneficially impact ACEC values because it

focuses on nonmotorized recreation and manages the Dubois Mill Site for pedestrian activities

which keeps motorized vehicles away from the bighorn sheep. Under Alternative A, this area is

not closed to motorized activities.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1171

The limits on surface-disturbing activities under Alternative D, including closing the area to

leasing and excluding ROWs, would result in benefits to ACEC values similar to the benefits

under Alternative B.

4.7.5.3.5.6.4. Special Designations

Other than ACEC designation and the small portion of the area managed as a WSA, there are

no special designations in the Whiskey Mountain area. The WSA is closed to motorized travel

in Alternative D which is more beneficial than Alternative C.

4.7.5.3.6. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – East Fork

4.7.5.3.6.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternative A designates 4,431 acres as an ACEC. Alternative B designates 7,744 acres, and

Alternative D designates 7,745 acres as an ACEC to protect elk habitat. Alternative C does not

designate the area as an ACEC and manages it with standard stipulations. The difference between

alternatives B and D is the transfer of 342 acres from the Dubois Badlands ACEC in Alternative

B to the East Fork ACEC in Alternative D.

Alternative C would result in the most adverse impacts to ACEC values because it manages

the area with standard stipulations which would not preclude surface disturbance that would

adversely impact elk and bighorn sheep including mineral activities and ROWs. Alternative A

has fewer adverse impacts because the mineral withdrawals are extended, oil and gas leasing has

a NSO stipulation, and the ACEC is avoided for major ROWs. Alternatives B and D have similar

management with limited adverse impacts to ACEC values. Alternative D would result in fewer

adverse impacts because the entire Dubois area is closed to oil and gas leasing, while Alternative

B only closes East Fork (and the other two Dubois-area ACECs) (Table 2.5, “Comparative

Summary of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by Alternative” (p. 50)).

Alternatives B and D are very similar in their beneficial impacts. Both alternatives would

emphasize resource protections over resource uses and both would limit mineral actions. Both

have similar VRM and wildlife protections and would limit livestock grazing to 691 acres within

the East Fork ACEC. Additionally, there is no difference in size of ACEC management because

while Alternative D has more acres in the East Fork ACEC, those lands are managed by the

Dubois Badlands ACEC under Alternative B. Alternative A is the next most beneficial because

the ACEC emphasizes protection of elk and bighorn sheep over resource uses such as oil and gas,

and pursues a withdrawal on part of the area, though fewer acres than Alternative B. Alternative

C would result in the fewest beneficial impacts because VRM management would allow more

surface disturbance and oil and gas development is not limited. Although the potential is low,

there is some oil and gas development in the area. Alternative C would beneficially impact elk

only to the extent that slope and riparian-wetland setbacks preclude surface disturbance.

4.7.5.3.6.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The East Fork area was designated as an ACEC in the 1987 RMP and EIS ROD to protect the

crucial winter range for elk and, to a lesser degree, bighorn sheep habitat. To support the winter

elk habitat, the WGFD has acquired lands in the East Fork area and undertaken protective

management on these lands.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1172 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

While the alternatives vary in their management of air quality, it is not likely that there would

any differences in impacts to ACEC values. The East Fork area is close to the Washakie and

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas and degradation of air quality under any alternative that could

potentially impact elk adversely, would be limited.

Since visual resources are not relevant or important values of concern for this area, this analysis

does not consider impacts to visual resources in determining adverse or beneficial impacts

to ACEC values. However, to the extent that VRM precludes surface disturbance, it would

beneficially impact elk habitat. Human intrusion would result in particularly adverse impacts to

elk compared to other big game, so the more other management strategies such as visual resource

prescriptions limit development, the more beneficial the impacts to ACEC values.

Fuels and vegetative treatments are the same under all alternatives. There would be some

vegetative treatment that would benefit elk forage under all alternatives. These treatments would

result in long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife habitat by contributing to vegetative diversity

and fostering elk forage. While the alternatives vary in the approach taken to silvicultural

techniques, impacts are not likely to vary among the alternatives because it is assumed that due to

the availability of timber in the Dubois area outside of the ACEC, forest resources in the East

Fork area would not be managed for commercial use, even under Alternative C. Accordingly,

forest products and silvicultural techniques are not further analyzed.

Under all alternatives, hunters and anglers would use primitive camping sites in the ACEC

for recreational purposes. There is no difference among the alternatives regarding recreation

management of these camping areas.

There is a pre-FLPMA locatable mineral withdrawal of 3,470 acres in East Fork area. This

withdrawal does not expire and does not vary by alternative, therefore it is not further addressed

in this section.

Under all alternatives, the existing ACEC would be closed to livestock grazing. The alternatives

vary regarding livestock grazing in the proposed expanded ACEC and non-WSA lands from

the Dubois Badlands.

Although the alternatives differ in their management of ROWs, including wind-energy

development, there would be little to no difference in the potential impacts. Although some of the

ACEC has potential for wind, there is no transmission line support for exporting the produced

electricity. The nearby lands managed as Wilderness in the Shoshone National Forest make it

unlikely that East Fork would be considered a suitable location for wind-energy development.

Accordingly, ROWs are not further analyzed in this section.

To support ACEC values, alternatives B and D expand the ACEC originally designated in 1987 to

include lands acquired after the 1987 RMP and EIS ROD. These lands were not added to the East

Fork ACEC at the time of acquisition. This section refers to the area identified under Alternative

B as the “expanded area,” and separately identifies management for the “expanded area” only if

it is different from management of the original ACEC. In addition to the expanded area under

Alternative B, Alternative D assigns certain lands managed as part of the Dubois Badlands ACEC

under Alternative A to become part of the East Fork ACEC. These lands are identified here and

for the Dubois Badlands ACEC as the “non-WSA lands in the Dubois Badlands.”

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1173

4.7.5.3.6.3. Alternative A

4.7.5.3.6.3.1. Program Management

The existing plan designated 4,431 acres in the East Fork area as an ACEC for elk crucial winter

habitat. In addition, a small resident herd of bighorn sheep also occupy the ACEC (see the ACEC

Report for a detailed discussion of these values). In general, Alternative A balances resource

protection with resource use. On a site-specific basis this balance might not protect a resource

as fully as would be the case if resource protection were the emphasis. However, Alternative A

prescriptions would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife in the area, primarily elk.

Alternative A manages the lands in the expanded area similarly to the ACEC lands and

surrounding WGFD lands.

4.7.5.3.6.3.2. Resources

Management actions from other programs that protect physical and biological values would result

in direct beneficial impacts to East Fork ACEC elk by protecting forage and maintaining intact

habitat. Soil and water management under Alternative A is according to standard stipulations,

which would beneficially impact the elk by limiting or relocating some surface disturbance.

Vegetation is managed to provide forage for wintering elk, which would benefit ACEC values.

Because visual resources are not considered a value of concern, Alternative A VRM of the East

Fork ACEC is identified in the visual resource program. VRM management would result in

beneficial impacts to ACEC values by limiting or prohibiting visually intrusive projects, although

some surface-disturbing activities may be allowed.

4.7.5.3.6.3.3. Resource Uses

Under Alternative A, the East Fork ACEC would be managed with a NSO restriction for oil and

gas development, and other solid mineral leasing and the expanded area would be managed

under standard stipulations. The ACEC is also withdrawn from locatable mineral entry, but the

expanded area would not be withdrawn. Although the potential for oil and gas in the ACEC is

low, oil and gas development is occurring not far from the ACEC on BLM-administered lands

and is proposed in the Shoshone National Forest. No potential for locatable minerals has been

identified for the expanded area, however, exploration could occur without a Plan of Operations

which could result in adverse impacts to elk habitat.

Alternative A closes the East Fork ACEC to mineral materials disposal, but does not close the

expanded area. It is unlikely that disposals would be approved because of the adverse impacts

to elk. No demand for mineral materials in the expanded area is anticipated. However, surface

disturbance as a result of mineral development of any kind would result in short- and long-term

adverse impacts to elk.

Alternative A does not authorize livestock grazing in the ACEC or in the expanded area except on

641 acres. However, lands in the expanded area were never officially closed to livestock grazing.

Rangeland infrastructure, including fences and water projects, are not precluded on the 641

acres where grazing is authorized, but it is unlikely that a project action that would adversely

impact elk would be authorized.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1174 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative A limits motorized vehicle travel to existing roads and trails. Alternative A does not

include seasonal closures for motorized over-snow travel and does not restrict cross-country

mechanized travel. Travel by motorized vehicles during winter would result in adverse impacts to

elk. However, because the majority of BLM-administered lands in the ACEC and expanded area

are surrounded by WGFD controlled lands, most of the BLM-administered lands are seasonally

closed due to the WGFD closures.

4.7.5.3.6.3.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative A, there are no special designations in the East Fork area except the ACEC.

4.7.5.3.6.4. Alternative B

4.7.5.3.6.4.1. Program Management

Alternative B expands ACEC protections to 3,313 more acres than Alternative A, for a total of

7,744 acres. Therefore, BLM-administered lands in the expanded area are designated as part of

the ACEC with the same management prescriptions that would complement management of the

surrounding WGFD lands.

4.7.5.3.6.4.2. Resources

Alternative B management of soil and water resources would benefit wildlife by limiting erosion

and fugitive dust.

Following a fire, Alternative B would result in more beneficial impacts to forest resources than

Alternative A because Alternative B mandates forest replanting. Alternative B management to

protect forest health from insect and disease outbreak would likely result in more short-term

adverse impacts than Alternative A, because treatment under Alternative B would be attempted

solely to protect human health and safety. The impact of this management could result in shortand long-term adverse impacts to elk habitat, because it would increase the likelihood of

landscape-level fires that would result in detrimental impacts to elk habitat.

Alternative B management of grassland and shrubland communities is similar to Alternative A,

and would result in the same beneficial impacts to elk.

Wildlife management under Alternative B is more protective of wildlife values than Alternative

A. Where grazing is allowed on the expanded ACEC, utilization is adjusted as needed to meet elk

herd objectives, and vegetation management emphasizes wildlife needs. Management, including

the management of visual resources, of the existing ACEC lands is the same under Alternative B

as Alternative A, so the level of impacts would be the same.

4.7.5.3.6.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B management of locatable, leasable, and mineral materials is more protective of

ACEC values than Alternative A because Alternative B extends the protections to the expanded

area. Alternative B withdraws the expanded area from locatable mineral entry and closes it to

leasable minerals and mineral materials disposal. The difference in beneficial impacts between

Alternative B and Alternative A would directly depend on the risk of surface disturbance through

mineral exploration and development.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1175

Impacts from livestock grazing under Alternative B are the same as under Alternative A, except

Alternative B officially closes the majority of lands in the expanded area. Under both alternatives,

forage is managed to benefit elk. Alternative B, by not approving rangeland projects in other parts

of the planning area, would have more funds available for non-infrastructure range improvements

such as vegetative treatments. Infrastructure would be approved in the expanded area if needed

to benefit elk. It is not likely that this management would result in a substantial difference in

impacts between the two alternatives.

Recreational management under Alternative B is generally the same as Alternative A, so impacts

to ACEC values would similar. Travel management under Alternative B would be more beneficial

to ACEC values because, not only does Alternative B protect more acres, it limits travel to

designated roads and trails and includes seasonal limitations on all motorized vehicles, including

over-snow vehicles. Therefore, travel management under Alternative B would result in more

beneficial impacts to elk. In addition, Alternative B prohibits cross-country mechanized travel,

which would result in more beneficial impacts to elk by protecting habitat from vegetation loss.

4.7.5.3.6.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative B does not include special designations other than the East Fork ACEC itself.

4.7.5.3.6.5. Alternative C

4.7.5.3.6.5.1. Program Management

Alternative C does not designate any acres in the East Fork area as an ACEC. Alternative C

management would use standard stipulations to protect the ACEC values and mitigate impacts

to wintering elk.

4.7.5.3.6.5.2. Resources

Alternative C emphasizes resource uses over physical and biological resources, which would

result in somewhat more adverse impacts to wildlife in the ACEC. Full fire suppression under

Alternative C would likely result in more beneficial impacts to elk than Alternative B, which uses

suppression only to protect human health and safety.

Alternative C grassland and shrubland management would be slightly less beneficial to elk

because it would emphasize forage production for all grazing animals and not, as under

Alternative B, for wildlife. Alternative C vegetative treatment also emphasizes forage and not

ecological diversity or wildlife needs.

Alternative C wildlife management would result in more adverse impacts to wildlife, specifically

elk, than Alternative B. Forage allocations under Alternative C emphasize livestock grazing use

rather than wildlife in portions of the expanded area where grazing is allowed. Alternative C does

not limit habitat fragmentation or increase vegetation by closing roads or limiting the footprint

of projects. Alternative C does not apply seasonal restrictions to oil and gas O&M activities,

therefore, O&M activities could disrupt elk during the winter. These impacts are described in

more detail in the Biological Resources section. Since this alternative would allow the subdivision

and development occurring on private lands, this impact could increase in importance over time.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1176 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative C manages the ACEC and expanded area as VRM Class III, which would be more

likely to adversely impact ACEC values than the VRM Class II in Alternative B. This management

would allow more surface disturbance by larger projects, and would result in more adverse impacts

to elk than Alternative B to the extent that there is a demand for surface-disturbing activities.

4.7.5.3.6.5.3. Resource Uses

Locatable and leasable minerals management under Alternative C could result in more adverse

impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A or B. Alternative C would open all of the ACEC to

mineral leasing with surface occupancy. Current withdrawals are allowed to expire, so these areas

would then be available for locatable mineral entry, as is the expanded area. Absent locatable

mineral withdrawal or ACEC designation, Alternative C does not require a Plan of Operations for

exploration that would disturb fewer than 5 acres. This management would result in more adverse

impacts to the East Fork ACEC than Alternative B and Alternative A. Adverse impacts to ACEC

values would be directly related to the likelihood of mineral development. Both the ACEC and

the expanded area have low potential for oil and gas, although any exploration or geophysical

activities would result in adverse impacts to elk.

Alternative C also opens the area to solid mineral leasing with surface occupancy. Although

low, there is some potential for phosphate. Any solid mineral development would remove all

vegetation from the area mined and create a pit to a depth necessary to recover the phosphate.

Strip mines are not easy to revegetate and there would be long-term loss of forage, with potentially

irreversible adverse impacts to elk. The most likely impacts from solid mineral leasing would

be from exploratory activities, which would adversely impact elk by increasing human presence

and removing vegetation.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative C would result in adverse impacts to ACEC

values similar to Alternative A, and somewhat more adverse than Alternative B. Alternative

C authorizes higher forage utilization levels, which would reduce the vegetation available to

wildlife in the expanded area, and makes progress toward rangeland health through additional

infrastructure, including water developments and fencing. Increased infrastructure would

concentrate livestock, adversely impacting vegetation, and fences can fragment habitat and

migration corridors. Impeding movement would adversely impact elk that winter in the ACEC

and move to habitat in the Shoshone National Forest in summer. However, range developments

could result in faster progress toward reaching rangeland health, which would beneficially impact

wildlife. The private lands in the area are generally already fenced.

Alternative C recreation management in the ACEC focuses on maintaining the safety of

recreationists and reducing conflicts, not on guaranteeing current recreation experiences. This

would be less beneficial to ACEC values than Alternative B.

Alternative C would result in more impacts to elk from travel management than under Alternative

A and fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B, because Alternative C does not include

limitations on winter travel. Winter is when elk depend most heavily on the ACEC for habitat, so

this adverse impact could be severe.

4.7.5.3.6.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not designate any of the East Fork area as an ACEC, and does not include

other special designation management that would impact ACEC values.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1177

4.7.5.3.6.6. Alternative D

4.7.5.3.6.6.1. Program Management

Alternative D designates the original 1987 ACEC, the expanded area (from Alternative B), and

392 acres of non-WSA land in the Dubois Badlands as an ACEC for a total of 7,745 acres.

Alternative D wildlife management would beneficially impact elk in the ACEC in a manner

similar to but not quite as protective of values as Alternative B. The Required Design Features

would, in conjunction with other ACEC management, protect the elk habitat.

4.7.5.3.6.6.2. Resources

Alternative D management of air quality, soil, and water would beneficially impact wildlife

and visual resources by limiting erosion and fugitive dust with generally the same beneficial

impacts as Alternative B.

Following a fire, Alternative D, like Alternative A, would result in fewer beneficial impacts to

forest resources than Alternative B because Alternative D mandates forest replanting only after

natural processes do not result in regeneration. Replanting after a landscape-level fire would

ultimately beneficially impact elk, but not within the planning period.

Alternative D management of grassland and shrubland communities would be the same as

Alternative A which is to meet NRCS Ecological Site Guide objectives, resulting in a natural

diversity of wildlife and game. Alternatives A, B, and D, would result in more beneficial impacts

to ACEC values than Alternative C, which emphasizes the production of forage that would be

shared with livestock on part of the ACEC.

In general, Alternative D wildlife management would result in more beneficial impacts to ACEC

values than Alternative A because Alternative D closes the entire Dubois area to oil and gas

leasing. This action would avoid the demand for ROWs through or near the ACEC and otherwise

limit the kinds of surface disturbance and disruption that would adversely impact elk.

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative D manages forage and adjusts livestock utilization as needed

to meet big game herd objectives and vegetation management emphasizes wildlife needs. This

would result in beneficial impacts similar, but possibly less beneficial, to ACEC wildlife than

Alternative B. However, because so little of East Fork ACEC is grazed under Alternative D, there

would be very little difference in impacts between alternatives B and D. Alternative D road

closures to benefit wildlife would result in some long-term beneficial impacts to ACEC wildlife

and resource values. However, this action would not be likely to result in many beneficial impacts

because there are very few redundant roads in the ACEC.

Alternatives B and D protect visual resources more than alternatives A and C, because alternatives

B and D manage all of the ACEC as VRM Class II which would reduce surface-disturbing

activities and thus benefit the elk.

4.7.5.3.6.6.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D leasable mineral and mineral materials management would result in more beneficial

impacts to ACEC values than alternatives A and C, but fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative

B. Like Alternative B, Alternative D closes the ACEC to phosphate leasing, mineral materials

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1178 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

disposal, and geophysical exploration. Similar to Alternative A, Alternative D manages the

ACEC through a NSO stipulation for oil and gas. In the locatable mineral program, Alternative D

would result in the same beneficial impacts to ACEC values as Alternative B, because alternatives

B and D withdraw the entire ACEC. Alternative A does not withdraw any new areas, although

it does maintain existing withdrawals. However, mineral resources in the ACEC are primarily

phosphate rather than locatable minerals; therefore, the difference in impacts of this management

is limited. Minerals management under Alternative D is protective of wildlife resources in Dubois

outside of the ACEC in ways that would support ACEC values by limiting the area of surface

disturbance. The Required Design Features would limit adverse impacts from the minimal

disturbance that would occur. Travel management implementation would prioritize the Dubois

area, which would beneficially impact ACEC values.

Alternative D livestock grazing management would result in fewer adverse impacts to ACEC

values than Alternative A because Alternative D closes 1,494 more acres in the ACEC to

livestock grazing, equal to a total of 832 AUMs, thereby reducing forage competition. Therefore,

under Alternative D there would be no range improvement projects in most of the ACEC, and

in the remainder of the ACEC, projects would be allowed only if their purpose was to enhance

ACEC values. Alternatives B and D would result in more beneficial impacts than Alternative A,

which allows range improvement projects even if they would not be for the benefit of wildlife.

Range improvement projects do not need to be for the benefit of improving livestock grazing, so

vegetation treatments and infrastructure could be developed in the absence of livestock grazing.

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D travel management would be more beneficial to wildlife

than Alternative A. Although Alternative A limits travel to designated roads and trails with

seasonal restrictions, this management has not been implemented in a way that can be enforced.

Alternatives B and D designation of roads and trails would be followed with implementation-level

planning, which would deter user-created routes and unauthorized road expansions that would be

likely under Alternative C travel management. Alternative D extends this protective management

to a larger area.

Motorized travel would be seasonally closed under Alternative D for a slightly shorter period than

under Alternative B. The Alternative D closure period would not adversely impact elk because

they generally leave the ACEC by May 15 and this date is consistent with adjoining WGFD lands.

Alternatives B and D seasonal closures are more protective of ACEC values than alternatives A

and C, which do not close the area seasonally to motorized vehicle use.

4.7.5.3.6.6.4. Special Designations

There are no special designations in the East Fork area other than the ACEC itself.

4.7.5.3.7. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – Beaver Rim

4.7.5.3.7.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternative A designates 6,421 acres as an ACEC for geologic and scenic values, Native American

values, as well as unique vegetation and habitat. Alternative B expands the ACEC to 20,532 acres

with additional management prescriptions. Alternative C does not designate the area as an ACEC

but manages it with standard stipulations. Alternative D designates the same area as Alternative A,

6,421 acres, but has more management prescriptions to protect ACEC values. Alternative D also

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1179

applies Required Design Features that would limit adverse impacts to ACEC values from surface

disturbance. Alternative D applies non-ACEC management that will support ACEC values.

Alternative C would result in the most adverse impacts to values of concern because it does not

limit surface occupancy for oil and gas or limit ROWs which would present a strong contrast

with the viewshed. Alternative A would have fewer adverse impacts but because of reduced

VRM, could allow development that would adversely impact ACEC values. Alternative D would

result in fewer adverse impacts than Alternative A because it manages the same area with more

protections. Alternative B is similar to Alternative D but would apply the protective prescriptions

to a larger portion of Beaver Rim.

The most beneficial impacts to ACEC values are under Alternative B, which prohibits the

most surface disturbance and would provide the greatest protections for raptors and greater

sage-grouse. Alternative D would result in similar beneficial impacts to wildlife and limits on

surface disturbance. However, those beneficial impacts are applied to a much smaller area and

thus less beneficial than Alternative B. Alternative A would limit some ROWs and oil and gas

development, but would result in reduced wildlife benefits. Alternative C's minimal management

strategies provide beneficial impacts only where slope restrictions would preclude development

on the slope of Beaver Rim, and none at all for visual resources.

4.7.5.3.7.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The view of Beaver Rim from Highway 287 and surrounding areas is important as a viewshed for

Native American values and for its geologic sequencing that is easy to see, an extremely rare

feature. To highlight the interesting and important views from Beaver Rim, the State of Wyoming

installed a visitor observation point with an information sign about the visible geology. Beaver

Rim’s prominence means that surface disturbance would be highly visible and present a strong

contrast with undisturbed areas. It has also been identified as an important area for unique plant

communities and raptor nesting areas, and is considered an area important to Native Americans.

Under all alternatives, limitations on surface disturbance would beneficially impact ACEC

values, including viewshed and habitat. Similarly, surface disturbance would adversely impact

ACEC values.

Fuels and vegetation treatment objectives are the same under all alternatives, although the

alternatives would vary in the amount of treatment expected each year. Livestock grazing would

be allowed under all alternatives. Forest and grassland/shrubland management would not result in

impacts under any alternative and are not analyzed here.

Alternative B designates a larger ACEC (20,532 acres as opposed to the 6,421 acres under

Alternative A). All alternatives discuss 6,421 acres as “the ACEC” and the 14,111 additional

acres proposed under Alternative B as the “expanded area.”

The alternatives would vary in the management of locatable mineral entry. The alternatives that

designate the area as an ACEC (alternatives A, B, and D) have the effect of requiring a Plan of

Operations for exploration of 5 acres or less. Alternative B withdraws the ACEC. However, there

is no identified locatable mineral potential so these differences in management actions are not

likely to have different environmental impacts. Locatable mineral management in the ACEC is

not further analyzed.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1180 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.7.3. Alternative A

4.7.5.3.7.3.1. Program Management

The 1987 RMP and EIS ROD designated 6,421 acres of Beaver Rim as an ACEC for visual and

geologic resources as well as for plant and raptor communities. Native American concerns have

been identified. Management under Alternative A is generally supportive of ACEC values,

although it limits some of its resource protections in areas where oil and gas potential is high.

4.7.5.3.7.3.2. Resources

See the ACEC Report for detailed discussion of resource values. Management actions from

other programs that protect physical and biological values would directly benefit ACEC values.

Alternative A vegetative management would result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts to

wildlife habitat by contributing to vegetative diversity and preventing INNS encroachment which

would directly benefit ACEC values. However, vegetative treatments would result in short-term

adverse impacts to visual resources, which could be mitigated by careful feathering of the edges.

Under Alternative A, fuels treatment would continue at the historic rate. Alternative A would

result in more adverse impacts from INNS by not requiring weed-free feed or livestock flushing.

Alternative A wildlife management would benefit Beaver Rim ACEC values by seasonally

limiting disturbance near active raptor nests. Wildlife management does not prohibit fences,

which would result in a minor adverse impact to the viewshed which could be mitigated by proper

fence placement. Wildlife sage-grouse management would beneficially impact ACEC values both

in the ACEC and the expanded area because the areas within 1⁄4 mile of greater sage-grouse leks

are closed to surface disturbance. This would visually limit some intrusive development in the

ACEC viewshed but would not be fully protective of greater sage-grouse.

Alternative A VRM would beneficially impact the visual and geologic resources in the ACEC

by limiting disturbances within and adjacent to the ACEC to those areas that retain the existing

character of the landscape. Lands farther away from the ACEC are managed to authorize

activities that may contrast with the landscape more than within the ACEC. VRM in the expanded

area has relatively few limits on surface disturbance under Alternative A, so there could be

considerably more adverse impacts to ACEC values, particularly given the flat top of Beaver Rim

and its prominence from a distance.

4.7.5.3.7.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A oil and gas management in the Beaver Rim ACEC and the expanded area are

subject to NSO restrictions in areas with moderate, low, or no potential for oil and gas, which

would limit adverse impacts to visual and geologic resources. Alternative A does not close the

ACEC or the expanded area to phosphate leasing, and there is phosphate just outside of the ACEC

and well within its viewshed and the viewshed of the ACEC. Phosphate mining would involve

stripping the vegetation and overburden to access the mineral (strip mining) and would be highly

visible from the ACEC as a long-term adverse impact. Alternative A manages the ACEC and the

expanded area to allow mineral materials disposals on a case-by-case basis, which would have the

potential to adversely impact ACEC values.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1181

The resources of interest in the ACEC would be adversely impacted by surface disturbance in

the area to the east because development there is unlimited, and standard oil and gas stipulations

would be applied.

Alternative A opens the ACEC and the expanded area to major ROWs and corridors, which

would adversely impact ACEC values. While it is possible that some projects could be sited in a

way that would minimize or mitigate adverse impacts, it is more likely that a ROW, particularly a

high-profile development such as an industrial wind-energy development, would adversely impact

ACEC values, particularly Native American values, if the development was near the ACEC.

The ACEC and the lands surrounding it, including the expanded area, have high potential for

wind-energy development, which would adversely impact the viewshed, raptors, and would

degrade the context of geologic resources.

Alternative A livestock grazing management would allow rangeland improvement projects.

However, such development would result in only slightly adverse impacts because it would not be

readily visible other than at a close distance, and would be small in scale to Beaver Rim’s open

vistas. Alternative A's development of range infrastructure would result in fewer vegetation

treatments for invasive plant species and juniper encroachment, which would increase the risk of

hotter fires that could adversely impact visual resources, unique plant communities, and raptors

over the short term and long term, and would adversely impact viewsheds.

Alternative A recreation management in the ACEC and the expanded area supports ACEC values,

but the recreation setting is not guaranteed, so there would be no beneficial impacts to ACEC

values. Motorized travel is limited to existing roads and trails, which would not protect ACEC

values, but the adverse impact would be minimal.

4.7.5.3.7.3.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative A, there is no special designation management in the area except the Beaver

Rim ACEC. Paleontological resources have been identified on Beaver Rim, with a NPS

recommendation for managing that area as an NNL. However, this designation was not pursued

and protections for the area are only those under the heritage program. It is not expected that

NNL listing would be pursued in the future. The ACEC is not expanded which would adversely

impact both the important resources in the area to the east and the visual resources and setting

of the ACEC values.

4.7.5.3.7.4. Alternative B

4.7.5.3.7.4.1. Program Management

Alternative B emphasizes protections of resources and focuses less on resource uses. This

management would result in the most beneficial impacts to ACEC values. Alternative B

designates a larger area, 20,532 acres rather than 6,421 acres, (the expanded area) than Alternative

A, and beneficial impacts of ACEC management would occur over a larger area. Conflicting

resource uses are limited. Alternative B would close all of greater sage-grouse Core Area,

protecting the values of interest to a far greater extent than Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1182 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.7.4.2. Resources

Alternative B management of air quality, soil, and water closes more acres to surface disturbance

and would benefit wildlife and visual resources in the Beaver Rim ACEC by limiting erosion and

fugitive dust. This management would be more beneficial to ACEC values than Alternative A,

which restricts surface disturbance in a smaller area. Alternative B implements a more proactive

approach to reduce emissions and improve air quality, which could slightly improve the view

of the ACEC as observed from Highway 287. Alternative B fuels management would result

in impacts similar to Alternative A.

Alternative B is more proactive in addressing the link between BLM-permitted activities and the

spread of invasive plant species. The presence of invasive plant species also adversely impacts

visual resources, not only because of the different appearance of invasive plant species than native

vegetation, but also because of the more intense fire regimes associated with heavy invasive plant

species infestation and the resulting adverse impacts to visual resources. However, it is likely

that this difference would be visible only at Beaver Rim itself, and would be less visible from a

distance because of the geology of the area.

Wildlife management under Alternative B would be more protective of ACEC wildlife values

than Alternative A. Alternative B does not allow new fences and would allow removal of some

existing fences to improve animal movement. While this ACEC is not designated for wildlife

values other than raptors, fence removal would also beneficially impact visual resources to a

modest degree by eliminating disturbances and visual intrusions. Alternative B management of

greater sage-grouse habitat would beneficially impact ACEC values by reducing considerably

more acres around leks to surface disturbance as well as imposing disturbance caps. Disturbance

caps and limits on the number of energy developments under Alternative B would provide

additional beneficial impacts to ACEC values.

Alternative B VRM would be far more beneficial than Alternative A because Alternative B would

allow substantially less visual intrusion that would change the characteristic landscape. This

management would limit obtrusive developments that would adversely impact ACEC setting.

Expanding this protection to a larger area would result in more beneficial impacts to ACEC values

than Alternative A, which allows much more surface disturbance in this area.

4.7.5.3.7.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B leasable and mineral materials management would result in somewhat more

beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A, both in the ACEC and in the expanded

area. Unlike Alternative A, Alternative B closes the ACEC and the surrounding Core Area to all

mineral leasing and mineral materials disposals. Alternative B closure of the area to phosphate

leasing would avoid the adverse impacts of an open pit mine in the viewshed of the ACEC from

key observation points. Minerals management would be most likely to result in more beneficial

impacts under Alternative B than under Alternative A, because of the closure of the area to solid

mineral leasing in the ACEC and VRM of the surrounding areas.

Alternative B management of wind-energy development, major ROWs and corridors would be

substantially more beneficial to ACEC values than Alternative A. Alternative B would manage

the ACEC as an exclusion area for these realty actions, whereas Alternative A allows them

unless prohibited by VRM. Extending VRM Class II prescriptions to the expanded area includes

lands on which Alternative A would allow wind-energy development and ROWs to transmit the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1183

electricity. There is substantial wind energy potential in the ACEC and proposed expansion,

as well as surrounding areas within key observation points of the Beaver Rim, so these visual

resource prescriptions provide an important benefit.

Alternative B livestock grazing management would result in impacts to ACEC values somewhat

different from Alternative A. Grazing management would utilize non-infrastructure range

improvement projects, particularly vegetation treatment. This would beneficially impact habitat

and viewshed to a moderate degree. Alternative B would manage to limit juniper encroachment,

which would decrease the risk of hotter fires, that adversely impact visual resources and raptors,

and would improve visual resources. Alternative B management would allow beneficial impacts

for INNS grazing management by the Authorized Officer requiring flushing, and establishing

forage reserves to support vegetation treatments and reclamation.

Alternative B recreation management is similar to Alternative A and would result in similar

impacts. Alternative B would limit travel to designated roads and trails, with implementation-level

planning to meet management requirements. This would beneficially impact ACEC values,

but only in the long term.

4.7.5.3.7.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative B designates the expanded area as an ACEC. In addition, other special designation

management under Alternative B would result in substantial additional beneficial impacts to the

Beaver Rim ACEC because so much of the viewshed would be protected from surface-disturbing

resource uses in the area not designated under Alternative A. The Government Draw/Upper

Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC and the Congressionally Designated Trails ACEC limit mineral,

ROW, and some range improvement projects that would result in adverse impacts to the view

of and from Beaver Rim. The difference in impacts between alternatives A and B is substantial

and would likely increase over time as more development was authorized under Alternative A,

particularly bentonite development to the west and wind-energy development to the south and east.

4.7.5.3.7.5. Alternative C

4.7.5.3.7.5.1. Program Management

Alternative C does not designate any portion of the Beaver Rim area as an ACEC. Instead, the

area would be managed with standard stipulations. Alternative C emphasizes resource use, with

fewer protections for resources. Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to the values

of concern than Alternative A, and substantially more than Alternative B.

4.7.5.3.7.5.2. Resources

The Alternative C emphasis on resource uses over the protection of physical and biological

resources would result in more adverse impacts to raptors as well as the visual and geologic

resources of the ACEC. Alternative C is like Alternative A in its impacts to air, soil, and water

resources and would have similar, slightly more adverse impacts in comparison to Alternative B.

Alternative C impacts from fuels and fire management would be the same as Alternative A.

The larger area open to surface disturbance under Alternative C would also result in slightly more

adverse impacts to the viewshed than Alternative B because the likelihood of INNS increases with

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1184 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

surface disturbance. The additional acres open to major ROWs and realty actions, and the larger

area available for surface disturbance under Alternative C, would increase the likelihood of INNS

infestation. Unless the spread of INNS resulted in a landscape-level fire, Alternative C INNS

management, while less beneficial than Alternative B, would result in limited adverse impacts to

Beaver Rim ACEC visual resources because they are generally viewed from a distance.

Alternative C wildlife management would result in more adverse impacts to ACEC values than

Alternative B because Alternative C does not close roads or limit the footprint of projects.

Alternative C includes the same management of greater sage-grouse habitat as Alternative A,

and therefore, would result in fewer beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative B.

Alternative C VRM in the ACEC and expanded area would result in more adverse impacts to

ACEC values than the Alternative B VRM Class II management. Under Alternative C, moderate

or major changes to the landscape are allowed, which would authorize more disturbance including

visually intrusive development.

4.7.5.3.7.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C leasable minerals management allows activities that would result in more adverse

impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A or B. Alternative C opens all of the ACEC and the

expanded area to mineral leasing with surface occupancy. While the ACEC and the expanded

area have low to very low potential for oil and gas, there is potential for phosphate resources

within the viewshed of the ACEC. Phosphate mining could result in highly adverse impacts to the

viewshed from the ACEC by stripping of vegetation and overburden to reach the mineral resource

(strip mining). This adverse impact to the viewshed would be irreversible and would likely result

in the loss of the raptors because of year-round disturbance.

The Beaver Rim ACEC and the adjoining portions of the Beaver Rim to the east would be leased

for oil and gas subject to standard stipulations. This would result in more adverse impacts to the

values of concern than under Alternative A and far more than Alternative B.

Management of major ROWs and corridors, including wind-energy development and transmission

lines, under Alternative C, would result in substantially more adverse impacts to visual resources

than Alternative B, which excludes these developments. The ACEC and the expanded area have

high potential for wind energy, and Alternative C opens the area to wind-energy development.

This industrialization of the area would result in severe adverse impacts to ACEC visual resources

in the short and long term. The demand for ROWs, such as roads and transmission lines to

support industrial wind-energy development in the ACEC and the expanded area would likely be

high. Moreover, Alternative C management of special designations would increase the likelihood

that wind energy and related ROWs would be developed.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative C would result in impacts to ACEC values

similar to Alternative A and only slightly less beneficial than Alternative B, although the

emphasis on range infrastructure would make vegetation treatment far less likely with adverse

impacts to visual resources.

Alternative C does not guarantee recreational setting or experience and would not result in

beneficial impacts to ACEC values. Recreation per se would not be expected to result in

adverse impacts to ACEC values. Similar to Alternative A, impacts to ACEC values from travel

management under Alternative C would be slightly more adverse than Alternative B. This impact

would only be apparent over the long term.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1185

4.7.5.3.7.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not have any special designations neither in the original ACEC or in the

expanded area so special designation management (other than the ACEC itself) would not

impact values of concern.

4.7.5.3.7.6. Alternative D

4.7.5.3.7.6.1. Program Management

Alternative D manages some areas with more resource protections and some areas for resource

uses such as mineral development. In areas with low potential for mineral resources and areas of

high resource values, Alternative D emphasizes resource protection. Alternative D designates the

same number of acres as an ACEC as Alternative A, but fewer than Alternative B. Alternative

D manages 6,421 acres as the Core Area with limits on surface disturbance and the number of

energy developments. Alternative D applies an MLP to the area to the east of the ACEC, which

would provide additional resource protections in this area. Alternative D would apply mineral

prescriptions not associated with ACEC management that would strongly support ACEC values.

4.7.5.3.7.6.2. Resources

Alternative D implements the same approach to emissions and air quality, and soil and water

resources as alternatives A and C and would have the same limited beneficial impacts to ACEC

values of concern by limiting surface disturbance. Alternative D management of INNS is the

same as Alternative A, and would be less likely to result in short-term adverse impacts than

Alternative B, which provides that treatment be attempted only to protect human health and

safety, although the difference is limited.

Alternative D wildlife management would result in more beneficial impacts to ACEC wildlife

values than Alternative A, substantially more than Alternative C, and the same as Alternative B

because of the more extensive greater sage-grouse buffers that are applied to surface disturbance

in both the ACEC and the expanded area (which are both in the Core Area). In addition,

Alternative D manages the Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area under an NSO restriction

for oil and gas, withdraws the area from locatable mineral entry, and, avoids the area for ROWs,

which would beneficially impact the Beaver Rim ACEC. Raptor seasonal limitations are applied

to a larger buffer than under Alternative C and the same under Alternative A, which beneficially

impacts raptors, a value of concern.

Alternative D management of paleontological resources is the same as alternatives A and C

regarding the Beaver Rim proposed NNL, and would result in the same slightly adverse impacts

in comparison to Alternative B. Alternatives B and D are more protective of visual resources in

the ACEC than alternatives A and C because alternatives B and D manage all of the ACEC and

almost all of the expanded area as VRM Class II, which would limit visually intrusive activities

that would adversely impact ACEC values.

4.7.5.3.7.6.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D leasable and mineral materials management would result in more beneficial impacts

to Beaver Rim ACEC values than Alternative A, but fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1186 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

B. Like Alternative B, Alternative D closes the ACEC to phosphate leasing, mineral materials

disposals, and geophysical exploration. Like Alternative A, Alternative D manages the ACEC and

most of the expanded area with the mineral protections described above. This management would

have moderately less beneficial impacts than Alternative B, but much fewer adverse impacts than

Alternative A and far fewer adverse impacts than Alternative C. Because the area has a low

potential for oil and gas, there would be little difference in beneficial impacts between alternatives

B and D. The application of the MLP to the area to the east of the ACEC would beneficially

impact the ACEC values by protecting their setting from disturbance. This would directly benefit

the viewing of the geologic and Native American resources in comparison to Alternative A.

Wind-energy developments and major ROWs and corridors can result in adverse impacts to ACEC

values because of the very prominent position of Beaver Rim. Alternative D, like Alternative B,

would result in substantially more beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A because

Alternative D manages the ACEC as an exclusion area for ROWs. Alternative A manages the

ACEC as an avoidance area to protect ACEC values, so on a case-by-case basis, Alternative A

could result in very severe adverse impacts if the ROW were granted. While the face of Beaver

Rim is protected from adverse impacts under Alternative C because of slope limitations, the top of

Beaver Rim is flat and Alternative C would allow any kind of ROW, despite the resulting adverse

impacts to Beaver Rim visual resources. As for the other ACECs, clear and unambiguous closure

of the ACEC to ROWs would benefit the public, although this would not be an environmental

benefit. Alternative D livestock grazing management would result in fewer adverse impacts to

ACEC values than Alternative A because Alternative D allows range improvement projects

only to enhance ACEC values, and when the projects are part of a Comprehensive Grazing

Strategy. Alternative A includes no such requirement. However, there would likely be only

limited beneficial impacts to ACEC values from this management under Alternative D, because

range improvement projects would result in limited adverse impacts to visual resources at the

distance from which Beaver Rim is viewed.

Alternative D utilizes range infrastructure to meet rangeland health standards but only if

pursuant to a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy. This should be beneficial to vegetation and

riparian-wetland values that support raptors, although the reduced vegetation treatment would

adversely impact visual resources.

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D travel management would result in slightly more beneficial

impacts to ACEC wildlife and scenic values than alternatives A and C, which do include travel

limitations. Travel restrictions help to limit the number of user-created trails and resulting adverse

impacts to ACEC values. Alternatives B and D designation of roads and trails would be followed

with implementation-level planning, which would deter user-created routes and unauthorized

road expansions that have been allowed to proliferate under current management (Alternative

A) or would continue under Alternative C.

Alternatives B and D limit over-snow motorized travel to snow depth of at least 12 inches;

however, alternatives A and C do not include such a limitation. Alternatives B and D would

result in more beneficial impacts to vegetation in the area, which would beneficially impact

ACEC values to a moderate degree.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1187

4.7.5.3.7.6.4. Special Designations

Alternative D management of the Congressionally Designated Trails would limit surface

disturbance which beneficially impacts the viewshed of the Beaver Rim, particularly as viewed

from the east.

4.7.5.3.8. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – Green Mountain

4.7.5.3.8.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternative A designates 14,612 acres of crucial winter range on Green and Crooks Mountain as

an ACEC to protect a resident elk herd. In addition, the greater sage-grouse Core Area has been

designated within the ACEC boundary. Although greater sage-grouse is not the primary reason for

ACEC designation, protection of greater sage-grouse habitat also protects overlapping elk habitat.

Alternative B designates 24,860 acres which includes all of the area designated in Alternative A

and additional elk parturition habitat. Alternative C does not designate the area as an ACEC and

manages it with standard stipulations. Alternative D expands the original ACEC to 21,389 acres

but limits the expansion to the parturition areas that are most threatened by mineral development.

Alternative C has the most adverse impacts to values of concern because it would allow the most

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities, including wind-energy development, ROWs, and oil

and gas development that would adversely impact elk and elk habitat. Alternative A would result

in the next most adverse impacts because although the area is managed as an ACEC, and oil

and gas is subject to a NSO stipulation, it does not include parturition habitat and does not cap

total disturbance in the greater sage-grouse Core Area, which contains elk habitat. Alternative

D would have similar but somewhat fewer adverse impacts compared to Alternative A because

more restrictions are placed upon resource uses under Alternative D. Alternative B would result

in the fewest adverse impacts because it includes all identified parturition habitat and closes the

greater sage-grouse Core Area to oil and gas leasing, which would beneficially impact elk habitat,

and proposes to withdraw the ACEC from locatable mineral entry subject to valid existing rights.

Alternative B would have the most beneficial impacts because it designates the largest area as

an ACEC, closes the most buffer around sage-grouse leks and has surface disturbance caps in

greater sage-grouse Core Area, and proposes to withdraw the entire area from locatable mineral

entry. Alternative D would have the next most beneficial management as it expands the ACEC,

although less than Alternative B, and has the same buffer around greater sage-grouse leks in the

Core Area and the same surface disturbance caps. It does not withdraw the area from locatable

mineral entry. Alternative A would result in the next most beneficial impacts to values of concern

because it designates the area as an ACEC and has a NSO stipulation for oil and gas development.

Alternative C would result in the fewest beneficial impacts because it does not designate the area

as an ACEC and manages it with standard stipulations. Alternative C has the same buffers around

sage-grouse leks as Alternative A.

4.7.5.3.8.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The 1987 RMP and EIS ROD designated the Green Mountain ACEC as an important habitat to a

resident, non-migratory elk herd. Impacts from uranium and oil and gas activities in the 1970s

and 1980s adversely impacted elk habitat and threatened the remaining habitat. Protections from

ACEC designation were determined necessary due to activities from uranium exploration on

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1188 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

fewer than 5 acres, which is uncontrolled without an ACEC designation, and surface management

for oil and gas development. Since the Green Mountain ACEC designation, elk populations

first stabilized and then exceeded identified herd objectives. Most importantly, following the

designation, uranium mining activities stopped with the worldwide drop in uranium prices and

the termination of federal subsidies on uranium. In addition, the commodity price of oil and

gas dropped, which further reduced development activities. As stated in Chapter 3, after the

bottoming out of prices in the 1990s and the oil spike of 2007, the price trend for oil and gas and

for uranium is now upward with fluctuations regularly occurring. The upward trend of uranium

and oil and gas prices are increasing the interest in mineral exploration and development in

the Green Mountain area.

Visual resources are not part of Green Mountain ACEC relevant and important features, and

management under all alternatives is consistent with general VRM for the area.

In 1987, the Sparhawk cabin was considered relevant and important. At present, it is not

considered to be relevant and important as required by 43 CFR 1610.7-2, but under all alternatives

it is a contributing feature of the ACEC.

Approximately 9,934 acres of the 1987 ACEC are in the Wyoming Governor's greater sage-grouse

Core Area. The alternatives vary in the management of surface disturbance that would affect

the Core Area.

All alternatives use an IPM approach that would result in the same impacts under all alternatives,

although Alternative B includes more limits on the use of chemical treatment; however, this

difference would likely not result in impacts to ACEC values. The alternatives would vary in the

amount of funds available for vegetative treatment. Under all alternatives, the ACEC would be

open to livestock grazing.

The Green Mountain ACEC contains extensive forest resources (28 percent of the area is forested)

and the alternatives would vary in their silvicultural management. However, it is unlikely that

the environmental impacts would vary by alternative because of the low demand for timber

from this area.

Although there are developed recreation sites on Green Mountain, management of these sites

would not vary by alternative or impact elk in the existing ACEC or the ACEC expansion area.

Alternative B designates an additional 10,248 acres adjacent to the existing ACEC, that elk use

for parturition habitat, for a total of 24,860 ACEC acres. This analysis refers to this area as the

“expanded area” and analyzes it separately from the ACEC designated in 1987 if the impacts

would be different.

4.7.5.3.8.3. Alternative A

4.7.5.3.8.3.1. Program Management

Alternative A management limits surface occupancy for oil and gas development to protect

important elk values, primarily crucial winter range. Alternative A does not withdraw any

portion of the Green Mountain ACEC from mineral leasing, but is otherwise protective of

resource values. However, this management would result in adverse impacts to other programs.

Alternative A designates 14,612 acres as an ACEC.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1189

4.7.5.3.8.3.2. Resources

The Green Mountain ACEC is for the benefit of the elk herd with special emphasis on protecting

the long-term functionality of crucial winter range; management actions from other programs

that protect physical and biological resources would directly benefit elk by protecting forage

and maintaining intact habitat. Alternative A manages vegetation to provide forage for the elk

population, a beneficial impact to elk in the existing ACEC. Alternative A manages air, soil, and

water resources with standard stipulations which would beneficially impact elk in the ACEC by

limiting surface disturbance.

Under Alternative A, there would be some vegetative treatment in the existing ACEC and the

expanded area to improve elk habitat. These treatments would result in long-term beneficial

impacts to habitat by contributing to vegetative diversity and health. There would be a short-term

adverse impact to elk during the time of treatment; however, treatments would be subject to

seasonal protection stipulations in crucial winter range and parturition habitat. Due to seasonal

stipulations to protect winter and parturition habitat, conflicts with fall hunting seasons, and a

short summer season, vegetative treatment and forest management actions would be limited.

Impacts would be the same in the existing ACEC and the expanded area.

Alternative A wildlife management in the ACEC includes seasonal closures for the benefit of

wintering elk, which would also protect the expanded area. Alternative A allows the construction

of fences, which would limit big game movement, create movement hazards, and cause habitat

fragmentation, resulting in adverse impacts to elk in the ACEC. Alternative A applies minimal

protections to greater sage-grouse habitat in the 9,934 acres of Core Area in the ACEC, but

those minimal protections would result in a beneficial impact to ACEC values because surface

disturbance is not allowed within the buffer around leks.

Alternative A cultural and paleontological resources management protects the Sparhawk cabin. In

addition, protections adopted as a result of heritage resources in the existing ACEC and expanded

area would limit surface disturbance that would adversely impact ACEC forage and habitat.

Alternative A VRM management would adversely impact elk in the existing ACEC and expanded

area by allowing more surface-disturbing activities. Adverse impacts would result from activities

that increase human presence causing elk to avoid the area and from activities that cause habitat

fragmentation.

4.7.5.3.8.3.3. Resource Uses

Oil and gas development in the existing Green Mountain ACEC is subject to NSO restrictions

under Alternative A, which limits surface-disturbing activities that cause loss of vegetation and

avoids habitat fragmentation, would beneficially impact elk. Alternative A opens the expanded

area to oil and gas leasing with standard stipulations which would result in adverse impacts

to the parturition habitat. Alternative A does not withdraw the ACEC or the expanded area

from locatable mineral entry, and development of the area’s uranium resources would adversely

impact elk habitat. Alternative A requires a Plan of Operation for exploration of 5 acres or less

in the ACEC, which would help limit adverse impacts from small exploratory activities in the

ACEC. Alternative A does not require Plans of Operations in the expanded area. Alternative A

does not close the ACEC or the expanded area to other mineral leasing, such as phosphate;

however, the area has limited solid leasable mineral potential. Alternative A generally manages

the ACEC as closed to mineral material disposals, which, if allowed, would adversely impact

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1190 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

elk. Because Alternative A does not close the expanded area to such disposals, there could still

be adverse impacts to ACEC values in that area from mineral material disposals conducted to

support uranium and oil and gas development and road building.

Alternative A manages the ACEC as an avoidance area for major ROWs and corridors, but

not the parturition area in the expanded area. An increase in demand for ROWs to access oil

and gas development sites and other mining activities could result in adverse impacts to elk

and avoidance management might not be adequate to prevent potentially serious cumulative

adverse impacts. Alternative A does not limit ROWs in the expanded area, and this would likely

adversely impact elk.

Alternative A livestock grazing management allows construction of rangeland infrastructure,

including fences and water projects, in the ACEC and the expanded area. Fences adversely impact

elk because they inhibit elk movement, cause habitat fragmentation, and can increase vegetation

utilization. Moderate utilization of forage by livestock would leave less forage available for

wildlife use, adversely impacting elk and other resident wildlife. Additional water development

could increase livestock use in areas traditionally used by elk and draw elk into other areas

increasing the potential for conflict with livestock and private lands.

The seasonal limitation on motorized travel in the ACEC, which also limits travel in the

expanded area, would beneficially impact wintering and calving elk. Otherwise, Alternative

A limits motorized travel to designated roads and trails during the open period in the ACEC

and to existing roads and trails in the expanded area. Alternative A does not limit mechanized

cross-country travel but there is likely little adverse impacts that result from this management.

Alternative A would allow over-snow cross-country motorized travel, which could adversely

impact elk through harassment or human presence during the winter and calving seasons when elk

are most vulnerable.

4.7.5.3.8.3.4. Special Designations

Other than the existing Green Mountain ACEC, Alternative A does not include special

designation management.

4.7.5.3.8.4. Alternative B

4.7.5.3.8.4.1. Program Management

Alternative B expands the area designated as an ACEC and proposes to withdraw the ACEC from

locatable mineral entry. It is closed to oil and gas leasing and has a 0.6-mile buffer around greater

sage-grouse leks in the Core Area.

4.7.5.3.8.4.2. Resources

Alternative B designates a larger ACEC than Alternative A (10,248 more acres, approximately

a 70 percent increase). To the extent that Alternative B management would adversely or

beneficially impact ACEC values, those potential impacts would be greater than under Alternative

A because it applies management actions over a larger area than Alternative A. Alternative B

management of air quality, soil, and water would benefit wildlife and visual resources by limiting

erosion and fugitive dust. Alternative B water management on the south side of Green Mountain

limits surface disturbance which beneficially impacts elk (the south side is an important water

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1191

recharge area although the limits on the use of pesticide to control INNS may result in more

adverse impacts to the elk than under Alternative A which does not restrict their use). Alternative

B implements a more proactive approach to reduce emissions and improve air quality; however,

except for limiting fugitive dust emissions which can adversely impact vegetation, this would

result in little impact to elk in the expanded ACEC. Following a fire or a timber sale, Alternative

B would result in more beneficial impacts to forest resources than Alternative A, because

Alternative B mandates forest replanting. However, because of the low potential of a large timber

sale, beneficial impacts would be modest. The extent of beneficial impacts cannot be assessed

because large forest sales would not be likely under any alternative. Alternative B manages

grassland and shrubland communities to support a diversity of wildlife and game, which would be

more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative A.

Additional vegetation treatment under Alternative B (above the historic average of 160 acres per

year) are likely. Depending on the area and type of treatment conducted, additional treatment acres

would have short-term adverse impacts to elk and long-term beneficial impacts to elk habitat.

Wildlife management under Alternative B would be more protective of wildlife values than

Alternative A. Alternative B would adjust livestock utilization as needed to meet big game herd

objectives and manage vegetation to emphasize wildlife needs. Alternative B removes some

existing fences and does not allow new fences to avoid habitat fragmentation and limits on

movement, which would be a beneficial impact to ACEC elk and substantially more beneficial

to elk in the expanded ACEC than Alternative A. Alternative B management to protect greater

sage-grouse habitat would limit surface disturbance in a much larger buffer around leks in the Core

Area than Alternative A. This management would limit adverse impacts from surface-disturbing

and disruptive actions on more acres than under Alternative A.

Visual resources are more protected than under Alternative A because Alternative B would

manage all of the expanded ACEC to limit the development of visually intrusive projects.

Compared to Alternative A, this management would result in the secondary beneficial impact

to elk of limiting habitat fragmentation and human presence.

4.7.5.3.8.4.3. Resource Uses

Locatable, leasable, and mineral materials management under Alternative B would be more

protective of ACEC values than Alternative A. Alternative B locatable mineral management

would result in more beneficial impacts because it proposes to withdraw the expanded ACEC

rather than requiring Plans of Operation. There is substantial potential for oil and gas and uranium

resources in the expanded ACEC. Exploration and development of these resources would result in

adverse impacts to elk in the existing ACEC and greater adverse impacts in the expanded area.

Alternative B closes the ACEC and expanded area to all non-oil and gas mineral leasing, but this

would result in little beneficial impact to elk because the potential for these leasable minerals

is not high in the expanded ACEC.

Alternative B management of wind-energy development and major ROWs and corridors, would

result in substantially more beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A because

Alternative B manages the ACEC as an exclusion area for these realty actions. Even if no other

route was available, the realty action would be denied and surface disturbance prevented. The

ACEC has high potential for wind-energy resources, and excluding wind-energy ROWs would

protect elk from the highly disruptive activities of industrial wind-energy development.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1192 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative B livestock grazing management would result in fewer adverse impacts to ACEC

values than Alternative A. Alternative B manages grazing for rangeland health by reducing

livestock utilization to light levels rather than developing rangeland infrastructure. This

management would result in fewer adverse impacts to wildlife than Alternative A, which

allows for higher utilization rates, and would decrease livestock concentrations near new water

developments and fences. Lower livestock utilization in the expanded ACEC would benefit elk

from a forage standpoint, but could slow progress on riparian-wetland health if exclosure fences

were not allowed. The funds Alternative A would spend on range projects could be utilized for

vegetation treatments under Alternative B to improve rangeland health, resulting in short- and

long-term beneficial impacts. However, while fencing on BLM-administered lands would not

increase, it is likely that fencing on private lands would increase to meet light utilization levels. It

is not possible to estimate the extent to which such fencing would increase as many private lands

already have extensive fencing, but fencing generally results in adverse impacts to wildlife.

Alternative B travel management would be more beneficial to ACEC values than Alternative A

because Alternative B limits travel in the expanded ACEC to designated roads and trails with

seasonal limitations, which is the same as Alternative A. Alternative B also limits mechanized

travel to designated roads and trails seasonally, which would limit adverse impacts to elk from

encounters with humans in new areas. It is not possible to estimate the extent of this benefit

because of terrain and weather limitations to cross-country usage.

4.7.5.3.8.4.4. Special Designations

Other than designation as an ACEC, Alternative B does not include special designation

management that would impact ACEC values.

4.7.5.3.8.5. Alternative C

4.7.5.3.8.5.1. Program Management

Alternative C emphasizes resource uses over resource protection, which would adversely impact

ACEC values because Alternative C manages the Green Mountain area (and adjoining areas)

with standard stipulations.

4.7.5.3.8.5.2. Resources

The Alternative C emphasis on resource uses over physical and biological resources would result

in more adverse impacts to resident elk. Unlike Alternative B, Alternative C does not proactively

manage air quality, but this would result in minimal impact because visual resources are not a

specific value for the ACEC. Alternative C has the same standard stipulations for soil and water

resources as Alternative A. Alternative C grassland and shrubland management would be less

beneficial to ACEC wildlife than Alternative B because it emphasizes forage production for

all grazing animals.

Alternative C non-ACEC wildlife management would result in more adverse impacts to

wildlife, and therefore impacts to elk, than Alternative B. Forage allocations under Alternative

C emphasize livestock grazing use rather than wildlife. Alternative C does not limit habitat

fragmentation or increase vegetation by closing roads or limiting the footprint of projects, which

would adversely impact elk. Alternative C would manage greater sage-grouse habitat similar to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1193

Alternative A, which limits surface disturbance in a smaller buffer area than Alternative B. See

the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife section which describes these impacts in more detail.

VRM under Alternative C would be more likely to adversely impact ACEC values than

Alternative B, because Alternative C would allow for substantially more surface-disturbing

activities over a greater area than Alternative B, with resulting adverse impacts to elk.

4.7.5.3.8.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C locatable and leasable minerals management would result in more adverse impacts

to ACEC values than Alternative A or Alternative B. Alternative C opens the ACEC and the

expanded area to mineral leasing with surface occupancy. Alternative C does not require Plans

of Operation for locatable mineral exploration on 5 acres or less, which means the BLM would

have little ability to limit adverse impacts to soil, vegetation, water, and visual resources from

smaller locatable mineral exploration. In light of the identified locatable mineral potential in the

area, Alternative C could result in greater adverse impacts to ACEC values than Alternative

B. Alternative C opens the ACEC to mineral leasing with surface occupancy which could

adversely impact vegetation through increased surface use and disturbance. Alternative C allows

geophysical exploration, which would result in short-term adverse impacts to wildlife and visual

resources due to vegetation and soil compaction if the process was repeated multiple times, as

sometimes happens.

Although Alternative C would make the ACEC available for solid mineral leasing, there is no

identified solid-mineral potential in the ACEC or expanded area. Therefore, impacts under

Alternative C would likely be similar to impacts under alternatives A and B.

Alternative C management of major ROWs and corridors, including wind-energy development

and transmission lines, and minor ROWs would result in more adverse impacts to elk than

Alternative B, which would manage the area as an exclusion area for these developments. The

Green Mountain ACEC has high potential for wind-energy development and the related need

for transmission lines. Impacts from industrial wind-energy development would be generated

by surface distance, human presence, and elk displacement. Elk are wary of human presence,

and a 450-foot tall tower with moving blades would likely result in more adverse impacts to elk

than a road or fence.

Alternative C allows major ROWs in the ACEC. Because of existing and anticipated mineral

activities, there would likely be a demand in the ACEC for ROWs. If wind energy is developed in

or near the ACEC, then ROWs for transmission lines might increase in the ACEC. It is not possible

to quantify this demand, but if development occurs, it would result in a substantial increase in

short- and long-term adverse impacts to ACEC values compared to alternatives A and B.

Alternative C livestock grazing management would result in impacts to ACEC values similar

to Alternative A. Alternative C authorizes higher livestock forage utilization levels, thereby

reducing vegetation available to wildlife, and would utilize additional infrastructure (i.e., water

developments, fencing) to improve rangeland health where needed. See the analysis under

Alternative B.

Travel management under Alternative C does not apply seasonal restrictions; therefore, it would

result in more adverse impacts than Alternative A or Alternative B.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1194 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.8.5.4. Special Designations

Alternative C does not designate Green Mountain as an ACEC and there are no other special

designations.

4.7.5.3.8.6. Alternative D

4.7.5.3.8.6.1. Program Management

Alternative D would expand the area designated as an ACEC by 46 percent over Alternative A,

but the ACEC is smaller than under Alternative B. The area of expansion under Alternative D

would incorporate most of the important parturition area on the south side of Green Mountain,

but would not expand to include all of the identified parturition habitat as under Alternative

B. As under Alternative B, to the extent that Alternative D management would adversely or

beneficially impact ACEC values, those impacts would be greater under Alternative D because

it applies management actions over a larger area than Alternative A. In conjunction with other

management actions, Alternative D's overall management emphasizes resource protections when

specific priority resources are identified.

4.7.5.3.8.6.2. Resources

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D's management of soil and water resources would

beneficially impact wildlife by limiting erosion and fugitive dust. Alternative D's more restrictive

management of activities that could degrade water quality would result in the same beneficial

impacts to the elk as Alternative B. Alternative D provides NSO management for lands to the

south (within the viewshed of the ACEC or on lands likely used by area wildlife). Outside the

ACEC, this management would beneficially impact ACEC values, although less than under

Alternative B. The Required Design Features would reduce the adverse impacts associated with

surface disturbance in the ACEC and in the adjoining habitat.

Alternative D manages grassland and shrubland communities to support a diversity of wildlife,

which would be somewhat more beneficial to wildlife than Alternative A. Like Alternative B,

Alternative D limits the use of chemicals for INNS treatment, however, Alternative D would allow

chemical treatment if other methods were not successful. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative

D could result in more beneficial impacts to vegetation by allowing the Authorized Officer to

require livestock flushing before they are turned out on the public lands, if it appears they have

ingested INNS feed. Alternatives B and D are also more proactive in addressing the link between

BLM-permitted activities and the spread of invasive plant species, which would avoid some of

the adverse impacts that could result under alternatives A and C.

Unlike Alternative B, which does not allow most range improvement projects, Alternative D

would allow them when pursuant to a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy and to where they benefit

ACEC values. Therefore, there would be less funding available for fire and fuels treatment,

including for INNS treatment, under Alternative D. In this regard, Alternative D would result

in adverse impacts similar to alternatives A and C, which focuses funding on infrastructure

and not on vegetative treatments.

Alternative D wildlife management would result in more beneficial impacts to ACEC wildlife

values than Alternative A, substantially more than Alternative C, and fewer than Alternative

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1195

B. Alternative D forage management would be similar to Alternative A, which would be less

beneficial to wildlife than Alternative B. As under Alternative A, Alternative D would allow for

new road development in crucial winter range. Alternative B would close the ACEC to new road

development for wildlife protection and would be more proactive in closing redundant roads to

reduce adverse impacts to habitat.

Alternative D would include the same raptor buffers as Alternative A, resulting in fewer beneficial

impacts than Alternative B, which doubles the buffer. The ACEC has many raptor nests, so the

seasonal limitation on surface disturbance is important. Alternative C would result in the most

adverse impacts because it limits surface disturbance around raptor nests on half of the total

acres in alternatives A and D.

Like Alternative A, Alternative D would manage forage and adjust livestock utilization as needed

to meet big game herd objectives, and manage vegetation emphasizing wildlife needs. This would

result in impacts similar to but possibly less beneficial to ACEC wildlife than Alternative B.

Alternative D special status species management would be similar to Alternative B, as greater

sage-grouse management would beneficially impact the portions of the ACEC that are in the

Core Area.

Alternative D cultural resource protections that limit surface disturbance would result in the same

beneficial impacts as Alternative A, which would be slightly less beneficial than Alternative B,

and less adverse than Alternative C. Alternative D VRM would limit more surface-disturbing

activities than Alternative A or Alternative C, but less than Alternative B with corresponding

impacts to elk.

4.7.5.3.8.6.3. Resource Uses

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative D applies NSO restrictions to oil and gas development

in the Green Mountain ACEC, which would result in beneficial impacts to elk by preventing

surface disturbance and animal disturbance and/or displacement. The area elk are protected in a

larger area (both in the expanded ACEC and in the parturition area to the south that is included

in the ACEC under Alternative B). This impact would be somewhat less beneficial than the

impact under Alternative B, which closes the expanded ACEC to oil and gas development.

There is moderate oil and gas potential in the existing ACEC and in the expanded area, oil and

gas development could result in substantial adverse impacts to elk. Like alternatives A and C,

Alternative D opens the entire area to solid mineral leasing; however, given the low potential

for phosphate, this is likely to have little adverse impacts to the elk. The area would be open to

mineral material disposal, but due to the value of the area to elk, it is likely mineral materials

disposals would not be authorized in the ACEC. The Required Design Features would result in

fewer adverse impacts associated with mineral development.

The greatest difference among the alternatives is in the management of locatable minerals. Green

Mountain and the surrounding area have high potential for uranium, and historic uranium mining

likely contributed to the decline in elk numbers in the 1970s and 1980s. Only Alternative

B proposes to withdraw the ACEC and the expanded area; therefore, Alternative B would

be the only alternative under which locatable mineral management would beneficially impact

elk. Alternatives A and D require Plans of Operation (Alternative D would require Plans of

Operations for a larger area than Alternative A) for small uranium exploration projects, which

would result in some potential to limit adverse impacts to elk. However, this management would

result in only modest beneficial impacts to elk, because it does not preclude uranium mines.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1196 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Whether mines would be developed is uncertain as it would depend on many factors including,

but not limited to, uranium prices.

While the withdrawal under Alternative B does not affect existing claims, not all of the ACEC

or the expanded area are currently under claims. While alternatives A and D would result in a

modest beneficial impact to elk, Alternative C would result in adverse impacts. Alternative B

would be substantially more beneficial to ACEC values. Similar to Alternative A, the area would

be excluded for major ROWs and avoided for minor ROWs. Alternative D would have greater

beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C.

Alternative D livestock grazing management would result in fewer adverse impacts to ACEC

values than Alternative A, because Alternative D would allow range improvement projects only

to enhance ACEC values and pursuant to a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy, whereas Alternative

A has no such requirement. This would likely result in more beneficial impacts to wildlife than

Alternative B, which prohibits range improvements of any kind. Alternative C would result in

more adverse impacts because it does not limit range improvement projects and does not include a

requirement that range improvement projects be pursuant to a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy.

Livestock utilization levels under Alternative D are the same as under alternatives A and C;

however, similar to Alternative B, Alternative D protects wildlife forage resources. This would

avoid the adverse impacts under Alternative C, which allows higher forage utilization and does

not have wildlife forage protection as an objective.

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D travel management would be more beneficial to wildlife

than Alternative A or C, which do not include such limitations. Travel restrictions would help

limit the number of user-created trails and their adverse impacts to ACEC values. Alternatives B

and D designation of roads and trails would be followed with implementation-level planning,

which would deter user-created routes and unauthorized road expansions that have been allowed

to proliferate under current management (Alternative A) or would continue under Alternative C.

Alternatives B and D limit over-snow motorized travel to a snow depth of at least 12 inches;

neither Alternative A nor Alternative C include such a limitation. Restricting over-snow travel

would beneficially impact vegetation in the area, which would beneficially impact ACEC values.

4.7.5.3.8.6.4. Special Designations

Other than the ACEC, Alternative D does not include special designation management that would

impact ACEC values. This is less beneficial than Alternative B, which designates a large ACEC

for Congressionally Designated Trails and greater sage-grouse, which would protect the area

around the ACEC and elk habitat in the area.

4.7.5.3.9. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – South Pass Historic Mining Area

In the 1960s and 1970s, there was a concerted effort to save the historic mining towns and sites

in the historic South Pass gold mining area. The State of Wyoming purchased South Pass

City, and the BLM began to develop the historic mining area as a historical, recreational, and

scenic destination. Under all alternatives, the BLM would work with the State of Wyoming

Abandoned Mine Division to reclaim or stabilize abandoned mine safety and environmental

hazards in the South Pass area that pose a danger to the public. The BLM acquired several

abandoned structures and partially stabilized them, including the ghost town of Miner’s Delight,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1197

and developed campgrounds and access roads in the area. There was preservation work in the

1980s, especially at Miner’s Delight.

Adverse impacts to important historical resources in the South Pass Historic Mining Area

ACEC would typically result in a loss of integrity of the resource, or in some cases, in a loss of

information. Adverse impacts to significant historical resources in the mining area may occur

in several ways, including actions that physically damage or destroy all or parts of a historic

site; actions that alter a significant element of a site or landscape; actions that introduce visual,

atmospheric (air), or audible (noise) elements that can diminish the historical integrity of a site

or the area; or a lack of action, which would cause a historical resource to deteriorate. Adverse

impacts may also result from increases in access to areas that contain historical resources and

structures, resulting in increases in use, erosion, looting, and vandalism.

The South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC is significant for its associations with important

events in American history, and for its good historical settings, which help visitors imagine

what it was like in the area during the mining booms of the mid to late 1800s. Adverse impacts

to these values may occur as a result of the actions described above, and impacts can be shortand long-term because some impacts can be reversed while others cannot. In some cases, the

area’s historical resources are also significant for their scientific data potential. Actions that cause

physical damage or destruction, and sometimes neglect, can adversely impact these resources.

Adverse impacts to these types of resources would be long-term because once they are damaged

or disturbed, impacts cannot be reversed.

Special management measures that might enhance the quality of resources would result in

beneficial impacts to the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC. Data recovery, stabilization and

repair of historic structures at Miner’s Delight, and fencing at gravesites near Miner’s Delight and

South Pass City are examples of beneficial impacts. Most of these beneficial impacts would be

long-term, but eventually, adverse natural and/or human influences would require more measures

to keep these resources from degrading.

Alternative D manages some of the area designated as an ACEC under Alternative A and

Alternative B, as an ACEC to support heritage and recreation management of the Congressionally

Designated Trails and their settings. Because the ACEC designation would be to support the

trails, the analysis of the impacts from ACEC management under Alternative D, with comparisons

to impacts under alternatives A, B, and C, is provided in the Congressionally Designated Trails

sections.

4.7.5.3.9.1. Summary of Impacts

Impacts to the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC would vary by alternative in the following

ways: Alternative C would have the most adverse impact because it would authorize more

surface-disturbing mineral and realty actions that would damage the historic mining resources and

their setting including from exploratory actions that would disturb less than 5 acres; Alternative A

would allow the next most disturbance followed by Alternative D; Alternative B would result in

the fewest adverse impacts because it has far more limits on surface disturbance.

Alternative A would retain the existing ACEC and provide moderate to good protection for many

of the historic values in the area. Alternative B would extend those protections by enlarging the

ACEC to include historic sites along and between Rock Creek and Willow Creek. In addition,

Alternative B would also provide for more intensive management of the historic sites in the

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1198 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

existing ACEC and the expanded area. Alternative C does not designate any portion of the South

Pass area as an ACEC and would not provide much protection for the historic resources in the

historic mining area. Alternative D would incorporate the old South Pass Historic Mining Area

ACEC and additional nearby lands into a new ACEC (the South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC)

for lands along the Congressionally Designated Trails that have the potential to experience adverse

impacts from mining. Alternative D would extend ACEC management to a larger area than the

other alternatives; however, it has fewer prescriptions than Alternative B, except in the part of the

ACEC within the Hudson-Atlantic City area that is withdrawn from locatable mineral entry.

4.7.5.3.9.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Standard procedures have been developed to help address adverse impacts to significant historical

resources. Standard BLM cultural resource management and protection procedures, guided by

cultural resource laws such as the NHPA and the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)

include archival research, on-the-ground inventories, site recordation and evaluation, avoidance,

data recovery excavations, condition assessments, stabilization, and historical research. These

standard procedures have protected historical resources in the South Pass Historic Mining Area

from damage. If protection is not feasible, the standard procedures provide for the recordation

of architectural data and/or the collection of archeological data that documents information

on the peoples who once lived in this area. All of the alternatives would be guided by these

standard procedures.

Standard procedures sometimes do not protect all types of cultural resources. Development

projects that directly impact cultural resources can impact resources where the setting is

important. For example, projects that intrude on historic settings can adversely impact historic

sites with historical settings (such as South Pass City and Miner’s Delight). A modern powerline

or open-pit gold mine built near South Pass City would affect the historical setting of the town,

and would adversely impact its historical integrity.

Another type of adverse impact on historic resources common to all alternatives would be from

increased public use of lands, which can occur for several reasons. One is improved access to

formerly remote areas. This is common in areas where development allows for the creation of

new roads. Another reason is the increased popularity and availability of OHVs, which also allow

access to formerly remote areas. A third reason is increased public interest in specific historic

sites or areas. As public use of lands increases, so can the adverse impacts to historic resources.

As more use occurs, more sites in the South Pass Historic Mining Area are visited or driven

over. Some of these resources have been looted or vandalized. This impact would occur under

any of the alternatives because access, OHV use, and public use and interest in the South Pass

Historic Mining Area are all expected to increase.

A beneficial impact common to all alternatives would be the indirect protection provided by

management for greater sage-grouse. While the acres vary by alternative, management that limits

surface disturbance in the Wyoming Governor’s Sage-grouse Core Area would result in secondary

beneficial impacts to ACEC values. Approximately 40 percent of the South Pass Historic Mining

Area is in the Core Area (see the Special Status Species – Wildlife section and the sections below).

Fire suppression activities in this ACEC, including the use of heavy equipment, does not vary by

alternative. Therefore, the adverse and beneficial impacts of that management would not vary

and are not further analyzed here. There are several pre-FLPMA withdrawals in the South Pass

Historic Mining Area that protect historical resources (such as Miner’s Delight and around South

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1199

Pass City) and offer protection from the impacts of mining. These withdrawals do not vary by

alternative and are not further analyzed here

AML protections in the South Pass area that provide for public health and safety are the same

under all the alternatives.

4.7.5.3.9.3. Alternative A

4.7.5.3.9.3.1. Program Management

The 1987 RMP and EIS ROD designated 12,576 acres as the South Pass Historic Mining Area

ACEC. ACEC management includes restrictions on activities such as oil and gas development

and land sales and exchanges; requires Plans of Operation for mining exploration activities;

conforms with South Pass City zoning ordinances; includes further stabilization and research at

Miner’s Delight; and retains the rustic character of the historic mining area. This management

has largely succeeded in maintaining the historic character and setting of the South Pass Historic

Mining Area ACEC, which has resulted in beneficial impacts to ACEC values that would

continue into the future.

4.7.5.3.9.3.2. Resources

Air quality management under Alternative A would result in neutral or slightly adverse impacts to

the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC. Efforts to maintain air quality in the area would

help maintain its important qualities. However, degradation in air quality would result in adverse

impacts to ACEC values. Alternative A management of soil and water resources would result in

beneficial impacts to ACEC values to the extent that management limits surface disturbances.

Other limitations on surface disturbances for the benefit of wildlife and special status species

would protect the historic setting. Alternative A would limit surface disturbance within 1⁄4 mile

of a greater sage-grouse lek and does not limit the number of disturbances or cap acres of

disturbance for the benefit of greater sage-grouse. Therefore, Alternative A would result in only a

limited benefit to the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC.

VRM Class ratings that protect natural viewsheds by limiting surface disturbance would also

protect South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC values. Alternative A would manage most of

the ACEC as VRM Class II, which would substantially limit surface-disturbing activities that

would adversely impact the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC. Alternative A manages the

area outside the Class II area as Classes III and IV, which would allows many more intrusions,

and therefore would result in more adverse impacts to the ACEC, especially from modern

disturbances and intrusions that would be visible from the south. Therefore, Alternative A VRM

management to protect natural viewsheds would result in beneficial and adverse impacts.

Alternative A restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources

(e.g., soil, water, biological resources, and special designations) would provide additional

protections for South Pass Historic Mining Area resources.

4.7.5.3.9.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A provides the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC limited protections from the

adverse impacts of locatable mineral exploration. The protections afforded by requiring a Plan

of Operations are more important in the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC than in other

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1200 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

ACECs because mining operations in the area have historically been smaller than 5 acres. The

Plan of Operations, thus, provides meaningful protections to the historic features and their setting.

Alternative A leasable fluid minerals management would prevent surface disturbance with NSO

stipulations, which would have a beneficial impact to the ACEC. Alternative A would open the

South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC for leasable solid minerals exploration. However, the

historic mining area is not located in proximity to any known leasable solid minerals exposures,

so adverse impacts to the ACEC from this type of activity would be unlikely. Mineral material

disposals are not precluded, but it is unlikely that such sales would be authorized if adverse

impacts to historic resources would result.

The South Pass Historic Mining Area would be avoided for highly visible ROW projects, such as

wind-energy developments, gas plants, power plants, and large transmission lines which would

benefit the ACEC. The area has high potential for commercial wind-energy development and this

management would have important beneficial impacts to the historic resources and their setting.

Livestock grazing management would not preclude adverse impacts to the historic setting through

development of range improvement projects.

4.7.5.3.9.3.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative A, the South Pass Historic Mining Area is an ACEC. Other special designation

management in the area is an ACEC of 1⁄4-mile buffer around the Congressionally Designated

Trails and the Red Canyon ACEC. While these ACECs are not contiguous with the South Pass

Historic Mining Area ACEC, their management would limit ROWs which would beneficially

impact the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC by limiting demand for ROWs through

the South Pass area.

4.7.5.3.9.4. Alternative B

4.7.5.3.9.4.1. Program Management

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B increases proactive management. Alternative B

would expand the existing ACEC to cover additional significant historic resources, and would

give more attention to the protection and recreational uses of the historic resources in the South

Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC.

4.7.5.3.9.4.2. Resources

Alternative B specifies that air quality management would reduce emissions and improve

air quality. This action would beneficially impact the ACEC more than management under

Alternative A.

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water,

biological resources, and special designations) would be greater under Alternative B, would

provide additional protection for South Pass Historic Mining Area resources, and would reduce

adverse impacts compared to Alternative A. Alternative B management of greater sage-grouse

would restrict surface disturbance in more areas of the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC

than Alternative A. Alternative B manages the entire existing ACEC and the proposed expanded

ACEC as VRM Class II, which would substantially reduce adverse impacts from visual intrusions

into the historic setting compared to Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1201

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil,

water, biological resources, and special designations) are greatest under Alternative B, provide

additional protection for South Pass Historic Mining Area resources, and would reduce adverse

impacts compared to Alternative A.

4.7.5.3.9.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B proposes to withdraw all of the existing and expanded ACEC from locatable

minerals entry which would result in more beneficial impacts than Alternative A. Beneficial

impacts from this management could be substantial because of locatable mineral potential (this

is an ACEC because of historic mining). Modern, mechanized mining would adversely impact

ACEC values because it would adversely impact the historic setting. Withdrawal would not

preclude casual use by nonmechanized recreational gold panners or mining by claimants with

valid existing rights. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B closes the existing and expanded

ACEC to leasable fluid/solid minerals and mineral materials exploration and development, or

imposes major constraints on those activities. This would protect the South Pass Historic Mining

Area from potential disturbances over more area. Alternative B restricts industrial wind-energy

development, power and gas plants, and large ROWs to a greater extent and over a larger area than

Alternative A. Alternative B would manage the ACEC as an exclusion area for ROWs and would

protect the South Pass Historic Mining Area from the impacts of wind-energy development, large

mines, and ROWs. Alternative B would result in considerably more beneficial impacts to the area

than Alternative A, particularly regarding large ROWs, because these projects could be allowed

under Alternative A if South Pass could not be avoided.

Alternative B would not authorize range improvement projects that would adversely impact the

historic setting. Therefore, livestock grazing management would be more beneficial to South Pass

Historic Mining Area ACEC values.

4.7.5.3.9.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative B would expand the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC to include more historic

sites near Willow and Rock creeks. This would enhance protection of the general mining area

by reducing the potential for adverse impacts to its intact historical settings. This alternative

provides better protection for the historic mining area than Alternative A. In addition, other

special designations under Alternative B, such as the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater

Sage-Grouse ACEC would limit or close surrounding areas to surface disturbance and would

manage more areas as VRM Class II. This would beneficially impact the South Pass Historic

Mining Area values of concern.

4.7.5.3.9.5. Alternative C

4.7.5.3.9.5.1. Program Management

Alternative C includes less proactive management than Alternative A. Alternative C would

apply the minimum actions necessary to comply with regulations, which would increase adverse

impacts to the historic mining area. Alternative C does not designate any portion of the South

Pass area as an ACEC and would manage the area with standard stipulations.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1202 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.9.5.2. Resources

Alternative C air quality management would be the same as management under Alternative A,

and would result in the same minimally adverse impacts to the South Pass Historic Mining

Area. Because Alternative C does not designate the area as an ACEC and places a greater

emphasis on resource use, it would place fewer restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the

protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water, biological resources, and special designations).

This management would result in more adverse impacts to the mining area’s historical resources

than alternatives A and B.

Alternative C would manage the South Pass Historic Mining Area as VRM Class III, and the

surrounding areas as Class IV. This management would allow far more surface disturbance than is

allowed under any other alternative, with commensurate adverse impacts to the historical setting.

4.7.5.3.9.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C would provide minimal protection from the impacts of locatable mineral entry.

Alternative C only prevents undue or unnecessary degradation. It does not require a Plan of

Operations unless the mining project would disturb more than 5 acres; therefore, new and

relatively uncontrolled mining operations could adversely impact historic sites in the mining area.

There is high potential for locatable minerals in the area, including iron and gold. The absence of

a requirement for Plans of Operation would result in particularly adverse impacts to the historic

setting; as many of these prospects would be smaller than 5 acres, but would have locatable

minerals potentials high enough for claimants to want to use mechanized equipment that could

substantially disturb the surface. Under Alternative C, adverse impacts to the South Pass Historic

Mining Area from leasable fluid minerals, leasable solid minerals, mineral materials disposals,

wind-energy development, gas and power plants, and large ROWs would be similar to impacts

from locatable minerals entry although the area is low potential for leasable minerals.

Wind-energy development, large ROWs, and mineral materials disposals would be the most likely

to result in adverse impacts. There is outstanding wind energy potential nearby, with a related

demand for ROWs. In addition, there could be increased demand because the areas immediately

to the north (Red Canyon and the Lander Slope) are also open to ROWs. Therefore, Alternative

C would be much more likely to result in adverse impacts than Alternative A, and substantially

more likely than Alternative B.

4.7.5.3.9.5.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative C, there are no special designations other than Congressionally Designated

Trails which are protected by a 1⁄4-mile buffer. To support the emphasis on resource use under

Alternative C, development outside the 1⁄4-mile buffer around trails would be authorized,

including industrial wind-energy development that would be within the viewshed of historic sites.

In addition, demand for ROWs to support activities in the Red Canyon and Lander Slope areas

would be higher because these areas are managed with standard stipulations under Alternative C,

rather than avoided as under Alternative A, or closed as under Alternative B. Alternative B's other

special designations would result in far more beneficial impacts than Alternative C.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1203

4.7.5.3.9.6. Alternative D

4.7.5.3.9.6.1. Program Management

Alternative D would include more proactive management of ACEC values than alternatives

A and C but less than Alternative B. Alternative D would designate all of the original South

Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC, as well as additional lands, as a new ACEC: the South Pass

Historical Landscape ACEC. Alternative D would manage 124,229 acres in this historic landscape

ACEC for the protection and recreational uses of the historic resources within the broad South

Pass area. Management prescriptions for minerals for that part of the ACEC located in the Lander

Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area have strong protections for ACEC values, including locatable

mineral withdrawals and closed to major ROWs.

4.7.5.3.9.6.2. Resources

Alternative D would manage air quality similar to alternatives A and C and would therefore result

in modestly fewer beneficial impacts than Alternative B. Alternative D water, soil, and vegetation

management would be the same as Alternative A and would result in the same moderate beneficial

impacts. Alternative D wildlife management is more protective of resources than Alternative

A, but less protective than Alternative B, therefore, Alternative D beneficial impacts to historic

resources would fall somewhere between the beneficial impacts of alternatives A and B, and

would be substantially greater than under Alternative C. The greatest beneficial impacts to ACEC

values would result from management for the protection of greater sage-grouse. Although

Alternative D does not designate a large sage-grouse ACEC, it would prohibit or severely limit

surface disturbance in the Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area for many resource values,

including general and crucial winter habitat, special status species, cultural values and viewsheds.

ACEC values would benefit from these protections, but not as much as under Alternative B.

Extending the boundaries of the South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC past South Pass Historic

Mining Area ACEC boundaries would increase the area managed as VRM Class II, which would

preclude more surface disturbance and allow fewer developments that contrast with the historic

setting. This would result in more beneficial impacts to historic resources than Alternative A,

and almost as many beneficial impacts as Alternative B. Alternative C would result in a greater

amount of adverse impacts than Alternative D.

4.7.5.3.9.6.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D would include the same prescriptions for locatable minerals entry as Alternative B

with the same limits on adverse impacts as that alternative. Alternative D management of leasable

minerals is the same as Alternative A, except NSO management is extended to a larger area. This

management would provide substantially less protection than Alternative B, which closes the

area to oil and gas leasing, and substantially more protection than Alternative C, which opens the

entire area to exploration under standard mineral regulations. Alternative D management of the

Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area would have beneficial impacts to the ACEC very similar

to those under Alternative B. There would be fewer adverse impacts to ACEC values because

of the closure of the area to ROWs, similar to Alternative B.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1204 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.9.6.4. Special Designations

Alternative D would incorporate the existing South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC into the

newly proposed South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC, which is part of the NTMC. This would

enhance protection of the general mining area by reducing the potential for adverse impacts to its

intact historical settings. This alternative would provide better protection for the historic mining

area than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B.

Other special designations under Alternative D would beneficially impact historic and recreational

resources in the ACEC. Protective management in the NTMC would limit visual intrusions into

the historic setting and preclude large-scale ROWs, such as industrial wind-energy developments

and transmission lines, outside the ACEC. In addition, the Alternative D designation of the

Lander Slope and Red Canyon as ACECs, which are exclusion areas for major ROWs, would

help reduce the demand for ROWs through the South Pass area.

4.7.5.3.10. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – National Historic Trails

See the Congressionally Designated Trails sections for a discussion of the impacts related to the

NHTs ACEC. The determination not to designate the entire length of the NHTs as an ACEC,

as was done in 1987, but to instead designate only the western portion of the Congressionally

Designated Trails that are within the South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC, was predicated on

the assumption that the many resource protections under in Alternative D, including the NTMC,

the Beaver Rim MLP, avoidance areas for ROWs, designated corridors, and other protections,

would be in place. See the Impacts Common to All Alternatives section regarding implementing

the entire alternative. Of particular importance to not designating the NTMC as an ACEC is the

withdrawal of the ruts and swales of the NHTs, the generally protective management of the

Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area, and the Beaver Rim MLP, from locatable mineral entry.

4.7.5.3.11. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – Continental Divide National

Scenic Trail

See the Congressionally Designated Trails sections for a discussion of the impacts related to

the CDNST ACEC. Limiting the designation of an ACEC associated with the Congressionally

Designated Trails, including the CDNST, is predicated on the total management of

Congressionally Designated Trails, including management of the NTMC and the withdrawal

of the ruts and swales of the NHTs, the generally protective management of the Lander

Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area, and the Beaver Rim MLP.

4.7.5.3.12. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – Cedar Ridge

Located in northeastern Fremont County and northwestern Natrona County, the regionally

significant prehistoric site of Cedar Ridge is a spiritual/sacred/traditional site very important to

the cultural continuity of several Native American tribes. This extensive site was first studied and

recorded in the 1990s, and was recognized by BLM and the Wyoming SHPO as a TCP soon after.

Most of the property is in the Casper Field Office planning area, but a small part of it extends

into the Lander Field Office planning area. The Casper 2007 RMP designated Cedar Ridge as a

Management Area, with special provisions to protect the TCP and its surroundings.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1205

The Cedar Ridge site is significant for two reasons: it contains important spiritual/religious

associations and has scientific data potential. Impacts to the site may result from actions that (1)

physically damage the site; (2) alter a significant element or elements of the site; (3) introduce

visual, atmospheric (air), or audible (noise) elements that diminish the integrity of the site and

its surroundings; and (4) increase access to more parts of the site, resulting in increases in use,

erosion, looting, and vandalism. Impacts may also result from a lack of management actions,

which would allow the site to deteriorate. Adverse impacts can result in a loss of integrity and/or

information of the resource, and are considered long-term because, generally, they cannot be

reversed.

Beneficial impacts may result from special management measures that enhance the quality of

the site. Closure of trails and roads that run through the site’s special features, and stabilization

of features that have been disrupted are ways to introduce beneficial impacts by improving site

setting and features. Most of these beneficial impacts would be long-term, but eventually, adverse

natural and/or human influences would require more measures to keep the site from deteriorating.

4.7.5.3.12.1. Summary of Impacts

Impacts to Cedar Ridge would vary by alternative in the following ways: alternatives A and

C are similar in their protections, however, Alternative A would offer more protection than

Alternative C and would be likely to result in somewhat fewer adverse impacts to Cedar Ridge.

Both alternatives focus on protecting the immediate Cedar Ridge TCP, but do not address impacts

farther away from the TCP, referred to as the “periphery,” which is not only the setting for the

TCP but also contains important cultural resources. Both would have more adverse impacts than

Alternative B or D. Alternative B would provide greater protection for the TCP and protect the

natural and historic setting of the area to a moderate to high degree and thus, would result in the

most beneficial impacts to values of concern. Alternative D would provide fewer protections

for the TCP and its setting than Alternative B, but more protections than Alternative A, and

substantially more than Alternative C. While Alternative B would manage 6,784 acres around

the TCP as a periphery buffer; Alternative D would specifically manage 3,284 acres around

the TCP as the periphery. Accordingly, Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts

to the TCP's setting (and the cultural resources located in the periphery) than Alternative A

or C, but less than Alternative B.

4.7.5.3.12.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The lands to the west and southwest of Cedar Ridge have long been developed to extract and

transport oil and gas resources, resulting in numerous wells, roads, pipelines, powerlines, and gas

plants. To the south, major utility corridors have also been established and contain large pipelines

and transmission lines. These developments are visible from the top of Cedar Ridge, and have

likely resulted in adverse impacts to the natural viewshed that originally made Cedar Ridge a

highly important spiritual site for Native Americans. Adverse impacts to the natural viewshed

would continue as long as oil and gas production continues in these areas.

Fire suppression management, including the use of heavy equipment, would be similar under

all alternatives, so impacts to the TCP would the same. All alternatives would protect Cedar

Ridge ACEC values.

Cedar Ridge is not in the greater sage-grouse Core Area. Therefore, there would be no impacts to

Cedar Ridge from the management of greater sage-grouse habitat under the alternatives.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1206 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Mineral management would vary by alternative, although all alternatives would include minimal

protections required by the NHPA. However, Cedar Ridge is in an area with low potential for

minerals and the potential for adverse impacts would be minimal. Therefore, mineral management

is not further analyzed.

Wind-energy development and related transmission lines would result in adverse impacts to

the Cedar Ridge setting. However, Cedar Ridge is in a low potential area where wind-energy

development is unlikely. Accordingly, although wind-energy management varies by alternative,

there would likely be no difference in the impacts by alternative.

The alternatives do not vary in their recreation or comprehensive travel management. All

alternatives would allow livestock grazing, so impacts from grazing are not analyzed. The

alternatives would vary in the way range improvement projects are managed and the resulting

impacts are described below.

The Cedar Ridge site and its surroundings are not within any existing ACECs, Congressionally

Designated Trails, or WSAs. Cedar Ridge is located far enough away from ACECs under any

alternative to be beneficially impacted. Accordingly, special designation management does not

vary by alternative except as to whether or not Cedar Ridge and its periphery are designated as

an ACEC.

4.7.5.3.12.3. Alternative A

4.7.5.3.12.3.1. Program Management

Awareness of the importance of Cedar Ridge to Native Americans is recent. Therefore, there has

been no proactive management of Cedar Ridge in the past. Future program plans proposed

under Alternative A would be to maintain the existing condition of the site and its immediate

surroundings, without ACEC management of Cedar Ridge or any special management for the

area in the periphery around it.

4.7.5.3.12.3.2. Resources

Air quality management under Alternative A would result in a neutral or slightly adverse impact to

Cedar Ridge by allowing activities that could degrade the viewshed and historical setting. Efforts

to maintain air quality around Cedar Ridge would help maintain its important natural qualities,

but if air quality degradation occurred, it would adversely impact the natural character of the site.

Soil and water management under Alternative A, with standard stipulations would result in little

beneficial impact to Cedar Ridge. This management in the past has not prevented degradation of

the visual setting of the TCP. This downward trend would be likely to continue under Alternative

A, although it could moderate with the fairly recent understanding of the importance of the TCP.

Alternative A management of wildlife and special status species would result in very little

beneficial impact to Cedar Ridge. The 1⁄4-mile raptor buffer would likely not prevent future

adverse impacts to Cedar Ridge, because it has not prevented development in the past that

adversely impacted Cedar Ridge's setting. There is very little area around Cedar Ridge that is

precluded from development for the protection of sage-grouse habitat. VRM that protects natural

viewsheds can protect cultural resource sites where the setting is considered important. However,

under Alternative A, the Cedar Ridge site is management as Class II, the surrounding area is VRM

Class IV and therefore, subject to adverse impacts through the addition of modern intrusions.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1207

4.7.5.3.12.3.3. Resource Uses

Highly visible ROWs and projects, such as mines, gas plants, power plants, and large transmission

lines, would (and already have) resulted in adverse impacts to Cedar Ridge in several different

ways. New large and visible projects could adversely impact the setting of the Cedar Ridge area,

and Alternative A does not include protections from the impacts of these types of projects.

Range improvement projects could adversely impact Cedar Ridge itself or the periphery, if

placement were not controlled to project TCP values and setting.

4.7.5.3.12.3.4. Special Designations

See Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

4.7.5.3.12.4. Alternative B

4.7.5.3.12.4.1. Program Management

Alternative B would provide for a very high level of program management compared to

Alternative A. Alternative B would designate the Cedar Ridge site and the area within a 3-mile

radius as an ACEC with protective prescriptions for 7,039 acres.

4.7.5.3.12.4.2. Resources

Alternative B would specify that air quality management reduce emissions and improve air

quality. This action would beneficially impact Cedar Ridge compared to the less beneficial

management under Alternative A, although the difference is likely to be minimal. Alternative B

water and soils management would be more beneficial to Cedar Ridge because the alternative

closes a larger area to surface disturbance to protect these values. The more area closed to

surface disturbance around Cedar Ridge, the more beneficial the impacts to the TCP would

be. Alternative B wildlife management in the Cedar Ridge area is more protective of values of

concern because a 3⁄4-mile buffer would be closed to surface disturbance and would preclude

adverse impacts to the historical setting.

Alternative B would result in similar adverse impacts as Alternative A because development

is not precluded to protect habitat.

Alternative B would result in greater beneficial impacts to the TCP values than Alternative A,

which manages the TCP and periphery area as VRM Class IV. Alternative B VRM Class II

objectives would prevent most adverse impacts to the TCP setting, including future disturbances

that could further disrupt its natural setting.

4.7.5.3.12.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B would protect more land around Cedar Ridge from the impacts of large ROWs (e.g.,

power plants, and gas plants) than Alternative A. This would protect more cultural resources from

potential disturbances than Alternative A. Given the low mineral potential in the area, excluding

large ROWs would result in substantially more beneficial impacts than Alternative A, because

large ROWs would be the most likely intrusion into the setting that would be likely to occur.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1208 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.12.4.4. Special Designations

See Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

4.7.5.3.12.5. Alternative C

4.7.5.3.12.5.1. Program Management

Alternative C would maintain proactive management in a similar level as Alternative A. Both

alternatives provide for a very low level of management for Cedar Ridge that would likely

continue the downward trend in its values of concern that have been observed over the last

30 years.

4.7.5.3.12.5.2. Resources

Alternative C, like Alternative A, would allow adverse impacts to air quality (although not

below state standards) which would have a minor adverse impact to the historical setting.

Alternative C would include the same prescriptions for air quality and fire and fuels management

as Alternative A, and would result in the same adverse impacts to Cedar Ridge. Alternative C

wildlife management would be similar to Alternative A, with similar, moderately adverse impacts

to values of concern.

Alternative C VRM would be the same as Alternative A (VRM Class IV, in which major

modifications of the existing landscape are allowed). Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C

would result in adverse impacts to the setting, and those impacts would be greater compared to

impacts under Alternative B.

4.7.5.3.12.5.3. Resource Uses

Highly visible projects, such as mines, gas plants, power plants, and large transmission lines,

would adversely impact Cedar Ridge. Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C would not include

protections from these types of projects. The potential for adverse impacts from this management

would be much greater than under Alternative B. Range improvement projects could, like under

Alternative A, adversely impact Cedar Ridge and its periphery, if located in a way that would

adversely impact the setting and TCPs.

4.7.5.3.12.5.4. Special Designations

See Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

4.7.5.3.12.6. Alternative D

4.7.5.3.12.6.1. Program Management

Alternative D does not designate any part of Cedar Ridge or its surroundings as an ACEC. This

alternative would manages the 255 acres of the TCP with prescriptions that are basically the same

as those adopted by the Casper Field Office in 2007, for the portion of Cedar Ridge in the Casper

Field Office planning area. Alternative D would include special prescriptions for 3,284 acres in

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1209

the periphery around Cedar Ridge, slightly less than half of the periphery area specially managed

under Alternative B. Unlike Alternative B, Alternative D would specially manage the periphery

with less restrictive prescriptions than in the TCP. Required Design Features would limit adverse

impacts associated with development, and VRM would provide additional protections.

4.7.5.3.12.6.2. Resources

Alternative D manages air quality the same as alternatives A and C, which would result in fewer

beneficial impacts to Cedar Ridge than Alternative B. Alternative D water and soil management

would be more similar to alternatives A and C than to Alternative B, which closes more area

to surface disturbance to protect TCP values. The more area that would be closed to surface

disturbance around Cedar Ridge, the more beneficial the impacts to the TCP.

Alternative D VRM would result in greater beneficial impacts to TCP values than Alternative A

or Alternative C although somewhat less beneficial than Alternative B, because the Alternative D

periphery would be smaller and managed as VRM Class III. VRM Class III would allow more

development that would adversely impact the setting than Alternative B. Whether this difference

would be substantial would depend on the proposed activities on a site-specific basis. Class II

VRM objectives would prevent most of the adverse impacts to the TCP setting, including future

disturbances that could further disrupt the natural setting of Cedar Ridge.

4.7.5.3.12.6.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D manages Cedar Ridge and lands around it the same as alternatives A and C

for locatable mineral entry, which would be much less beneficial than the withdrawal under

Alternative B. The difference in impacts among the alternatives might mean little because the

potential for locatable minerals around Cedar Ridge is low and the likelihood of impacts from

locatable mineral entry would be remote. Alternative D would be more similar to Alternative B in

its management of leasable minerals and mineral materials disposals, than to Alternative A or C.

Within the 255 acres of the TCP, Alternative D management would maintain an NSO restriction,

not closed as under Alternative B. However, the NSO restriction would still beneficially

impact TCP values. In the smaller periphery, Alternative D protects the TCP setting with CSU

management and adverse impacts would be avoided or mitigated. This smaller area and lower

level of protection would result in more adverse impacts than the Alternative B extension of an

NSO restriction to a larger periphery. The impact of this difference would depend on the extent of

demand for mineral development as mineral potential in the Cedar Ridge area is considered low.

Alternative D would result in substantially more beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C.

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D would protect TCP values by managing the TCP as an

exclusion area for major ROW projects, including wind-energy development. Alternative D

would manage the periphery as an avoidance area for ROWs, rather than an exclusion area similar

to Alternative B however, the VRM Class III objectives for the periphery would be likely to limit

adverse impacts from large visual intrusions such as wind turbines. Alternatives B and D would

result in greater beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C, which do not preclude these types of

developments and under which VRM management (Class IV) would allow them.

4.7.5.3.12.6.4. Special Designations

See Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1210 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.13. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – Castle Gardens

Located in eastern Fremont County, the regionally significant prehistoric rock art site of Castle

Gardens is a classic example of Plains-style incised shield and representational rock art of the

Late Prehistoric period. This extensive petroglyph/pictograph site was first studied and recorded

in the 1930s, and was written about in regional newspapers. By the 1950s, this site had become

well known, but was also suffering from major vandalism and theft. The BLM and the NPS

developed and implemented a site protection plan in the 1970s that included fencing around the

rock art panels, a parking lot, toilets, picnic benches, a small amount of interpretative information,

and fencing around the general site area.

The Castle Gardens rock art site is significant for several reasons, including its scientific data

potential, its unique artistic and representational characteristics, and its important spiritual and/or

religious associations. Impacts on the site may include actions that (1) physically damage the

site; (2) alter a significant element or elements of the site; (3) introduce visual, atmospheric (air),

or audible (noise) elements, which diminish the integrity of the site and its surroundings; and

(4) increase access to more parts of the site, resulting in increases in use, erosion, looting, and

vandalism. Impacts would also result from a lack of management actions, which may allow

the site to deteriorate. These actions result in impacts including the loss of information and/or

integrity of the resource. All of these impacts would be long-term because damage or disturbance,

generally, cannot be reversed.

Beneficial impacts would result from special management designed to enhance the quality of the

site. Management actions that would enhance the quality of the site include stabilizing and

repairing petroglyph panels; removing graffiti; removing or reconfiguring fences, walkways, and

parking areas to improve the natural setting of the site area; erosion control; and interpretational

and educational improvements. Most beneficial impacts would be long-term, but eventually,

adverse natural and/or human influences would require additional measures to keep the site

from deteriorating.

Castle Gardens and its surrounding periphery is in the Wyoming Governor Core Area.

4.7.5.3.13.1. Summary of Impacts

Impacts to Castle Gardens would vary by alternative in the following ways: Alternatives A

and C are similar in their protections, but Alternative A would provide greater protection than

Alternative C. Both alternatives focus on protecting the immediate Castle Gardens site area, but

do not address impacts farther away from the 80 acre site. Alternative B would provide greater

protections for Castle Gardens and its periphery, and would protect the natural and historic setting

of the area to a greater degree by designating 8,469 acres, including BLM-administered lands

within a 3-mile radius of the TCP as part of an ACEC. Alternative D does not designate any

portion of the area as an ACEC and would include management prescriptions to protect Castle

Gardens over a much smaller area (1,656 acres).

Beneficial impacts to Castle Gardens would be greatest under alternatives B and D because

Castle Gardens and its periphery would have limits on surface disturbance to protect the greater

sage-grouse Core Area. Alternative B energy management would be more restrictive, but may

not result in more beneficial impacts to Castle Gardens because the area is low to moderate

potential. Minimal difference in impacts is anticipated among the alternatives in regard to energy

development. Both alternatives would beneficially impact the area by limiting ROWs and other

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1211

visually intrusive surface disturbance. See the Special Status Species – Wildlife section for a

detailed analysis of protections by alternative for greater sage-grouse limitations on disturbance.

These limits would also benefit Castle Gardens and its periphery.

4.7.5.3.13.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Protective measures instituted in the 1970s and formalized in the 1987 RMP and EIS ROD

included fencing an area of approximately 80 acres around the Castle Gardens Rock Art Site and

Picnic Area, and restricting mineral and realty actions within the fenced area. These actions

protected the immediate site area from development-related impacts. Subsequently, this area

was more clearly defined using technological advances and is now known to include 80 acres.

However, there are additional sites and art locations in the periphery around the 80 acre site.

Protections for the periphery would vary by alternative.

Over the last 10 years, more cultural resources personnel have been available to try and improve

management around the Castle Gardens area. During the last 5 years, the BLM has obtained

funding to have a conservation expert study and recommend measures to stabilize/repair/improve

the site; remove the dilapidated toilet; and inventory the area around Castle Gardens (referred to

herein as the periphery; the size of the periphery would vary by alternative) to determine if there

is more rock art, or other evidence of prehistoric occupation. Future plans are to consult with

Native American groups and eventually write a management plan to improve protection and use

of the site as well as the surrounding areas. This basic management does not vary by alternative.

The remaining threat to the rock art site itself, are mostly related to visitor use impacts. There are

several reasons for these impacts. Hundreds of people visit the Castle Gardens Rock Art Site

and Picnic Area every year. The visitors come to view and learn about the rock art, the natural

setting, and the unique landscape of the area. Unfortunately, the site is not well developed or

managed, and the lack of planning and attention has adversely impacted the site. For example,

no walkways were built and unplanned paths have formed over time, causing erosion along the

walkways and near the petroglyph panels. OHV users have gone around parking lot barriers and

have caused disturbance and erosion in the site. Fences around the panels designed to protect the

petroglyphs are difficult to see through and have been breached. Graffiti has been drawn on top

of and around the petroglyphs, and on many of the unfenced rock faces in the area. In addition,

the petroglyphs have been chipped out of the rock and stolen. Even with mitigative measures

such as those recommended under the various alternatives, these types of impacts are expected to

continue to some degree.

The alternatives do not vary in the use of heavy equipment for fire suppression and all alternatives

assume that the Fire Program has been made aware of the importance of the cultural properties of

Castle Gardens and the periphery around it.

The 80 acres of the Castle Gardens TCP was withdrawn from mineral entry in a pre-FLPMA action

that does not vary by alternative. This withdrawal is managed under all alternatives as closing

the cultural resources site to all mineral activities. Accordingly, impacts from minerals activities

associated with the 80-acre site do not vary by alternative and are identified below only as needed

to clarify the impacts analysis. Improved mapping techniques since the 1987 EIS have identified

that this area is really 80 acres and the alternatives all use 80 acres as the Castle Gardens site.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1212 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Castle Gardens and its periphery have low potential for locatable minerals and phosphate, and

moderate potential for oil and gas. The impacts to Castle Gardens (beneficial and adverse) would

not be likely to vary in more than a low degree, although management would vary by alternative.

Although Castle Gardens itself has high potential for commercial wind-energy development,

BLM obligations under the NHPA and Native American religious protections would preclude

development in the 80 acres and probably in the periphery, under all alternatives. Accordingly,

there would be no difference in impacts for wind energy management among the alternatives in

Castle Gardens and its periphery. Outside this area, the alternatives would vary in the impacts to

the setting of Castle Gardens. These differences are discussed under each alternative.

4.7.5.3.13.3. Alternative A

4.7.5.3.13.3.1. Program Management

The 1987 RMP and EIS ROD designated Castle Gardens as a unique management area and

restricted most non-recreational uses within an 80-acre area around the main site area. Current

management is largely the same, but since the late 1990s, the BLM has become more aware

of the importance of Castle Gardens to regional Native American tribes as a spiritual/sacred

place. Management is to minimally protect the identified cultural sites in Castle Gardens. The

area outside of Castle Gardens but within its viewshed is managed with standard stipulations.

Alternative A greater sage-grouse management does not incorporate the Core Area strategy and

would have minimal limits on surface disturbance. Therefore, fewer areas in the Castle Gardens

viewshed would be protected.

4.7.5.3.13.3.2. Resources

Air quality management under Alternative A would result in neutral or minimal adverse impacts

to Castle Gardens. Efforts to maintain air quality around the site would help maintain its important

qualities. However, if the air quality degrades, it would adversely impact the site. Restrictions on

surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water, and biological

resources) would provide additional minimal protection for Castle Gardens.

VRM Classes that protect natural viewsheds may protect cultural resource sites where the

setting is considered important. However, under Alternative A, the Castle Gardens site and its

surroundings area is located in Class IV areas, and would be subject to adverse impacts from the

introduction of modern intrusions into the historical/natural setting.

4.7.5.3.13.3.3. Resource Uses

Although Alternative A does not limit mineral development in the periphery; as indicated in

Impacts Common to All Alternatives, this would not likely result in adverse impacts to the cultural

resource except to a minimal degree.

Highly visible ROW and development projects, such as wind-energy development, mines, gas

plants, power plants, and large transmission lines, would adversely impact Castle Gardens in

several different ways. Although these activities are prevented in the immediate site area, these

large and visible projects would adversely impact the historical/natural setting of the Castle

Gardens area. For example, an industrial wind-energy development or gas plant near the Castle

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1213

Gardens site would adversely impact the site’s value to Native American tribes. Alternative A

does not protect the site’s setting from these types of projects.

4.7.5.3.13.3.4. Special Designations

The Castle Gardens site and its surroundings are not located within any existing ACECs and are

not protected by any management for Congressionally Designated Trails, WSAs, or WSRs.

4.7.5.3.13.4. Alternative B

4.7.5.3.13.4.1. Program Management

Alternative B would designate an 8,469 acre ACEC including Castle Gardens and the

BLM-administered lands in a 3-mile radius around it as an ACEC. Alternative B would provide

for more proactive management than Alternative A. This alternative would increase the focus on

revamping public use of the area to better protect the site, enhance the natural character of this

area, and increase public enjoyment of the site.

4.7.5.3.13.4.2. Resources

Alternative B would specify that emissions be reduced to improve air quality. This action

would beneficially impact Castle Gardens and would be more beneficial to the site than

management under Alternative A. Alternative B would extend raptor protections over a greater

area, which would result in more beneficial impacts than under Alternative A. Restrictions on

surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water, biological

resources) would be greatest under Alternative B, providing additional protections for Castle

Gardens and reducing the potential for adverse impacts to the extent that those protections would

limit surface disturbance within Castle Gardens setting. Alternative B greater sage-grouse

management limits surface disturbance to a far greater extent than Alternative A with beneficial

impacts to Castle Gardens setting.

Alternative B would classify much more land around Castle Gardens as VRM Classes II and III

than Alternative A. This would better protect the site from the introduction of development that

would be out of character with the area’s historical/natural settings.

4.7.5.3.13.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B protects more lands around Castle Gardens from the impacts of locatable mineral

entry than Alternative A (8,469 acres, including the 80 acres that do not vary by alternative),

which would protect more cultural resources from potential disturbances than Alternative A.

Alternative B would also protect the 8,469 acres from adverse impacts of leasable fluid/solid

minerals development, mineral materials disposals, and large ROWs (e.g., wind-energy

developments, power plants, and gas plants). Management under Alternative B would protect

more cultural resources from potential disturbance than Alternative A. This protection is most

important for oil and gas exploration and large ROWs, which would have the highest potential

to occur in the area.

Alternative B ROW management, in general, would result in more beneficial impacts to the

Castle Gardens area than Alternative A. Alternative A manages ROWs with standard stipulations;

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1214 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Alternative B manages the area as an exclusion area from major and minor ROWs, which would

provide more protections for the individual sites and their settings.

4.7.5.3.13.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative B would designate the Castle Gardens site and the area within a 3-mile radius as an

ACEC. This would enhance protection of the site and its surroundings by reducing the potential

for adverse impacts to its intact historical and natural settings. This would also provide adequate

protection for spiritual values important to Native Americans in this special area. There are

no other special designations that would benefit Castle Gardens except to the extent that the

RHT&EHs ACEC would protect Castle Gardens's viewshed and setting. Any beneficial impacts

could be determined only with a project-specific viewshed analysis.

4.7.5.3.13.5. Alternative C

4.7.5.3.13.5.1. Program Management

Alternative C would maintain the proactive management described for Alternative A, with

no portion of the area designated an ACEC. Alternative C manages the 80 acres within the

pre-FLPMA withdrawal, but would provide little additional management. In general, the impacts

associated with management under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative A.

4.7.5.3.13.5.2. Resources

Alternative C air quality, and biological management would be similar to Alternative A, and

would result in the same moderate adverse impacts to Castle Gardens. However, there would

be fewer beneficial impacts than under Alternative B. Alternative C's greater sage-grouse

management would be the same as Alternative A.

Alternative C manages the 80-acre site as VRM Class III rather than Class II as under alternatives

A and B, which would result in more adverse impacts by allowing more contrast with the existing

landscape. Other management prescriptions for the 80 acres would likely limit the adverse

impacts of this less-protective VRM. However, Alternative C would manage the periphery as

VRM Class IV, resulting in more adverse impacts to the setting than Alternative B, and somewhat

greater adverse impacts than Alternative A. Under Alternative C, most of the area around Castle

Gardens would be in VRM Class IV areas, which would provide little or no protection to the

historical/natural setting of the site.

4.7.5.3.13.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C manages ROWs similar to Alternative A, which would result in the same adverse

impacts to Castle Gardens (outside the 80 acres). Both alternatives would result in greater adverse

impacts to Castle Gardens than Alternative B depending upon the demand for larger-scale

ROWs. Alternative B management of all ROW projects, including large-scale projects such

as wind-energy developments, would be more protective and would result in more beneficial

impacts than Alternative A or C.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1215

4.7.5.3.13.5.4. Special Designations

Similar to Alternative A, the Castle Gardens site and its surroundings would not be located

within any existing ACECs and would not be protected by management for Congressionally

Designated Trails, WSAs, or WSRs.

4.7.5.3.13.6. Alternative D

4.7.5.3.13.6.1. Program Management

Alternative D would include more proactive management than alternatives A and C, and would

provide a similar level of management as Alternative B. However, Alternative D would not

designate the area as an ACEC and would provide protective management to a smaller area (a

periphery of 1,656 acres). Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D would increase the focus on

revamping public use of the area to better protect the site, enhance the natural character of this

area, and increase public enjoyment of the site. Required Design Features in the area near Castle

Garden would limit the adverse impacts associated with development that could occur given the

management of the area as VRM Class IV.

4.7.5.3.13.6.2. Resources

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D would specify that emissions be reduced to improve air

quality. This action would beneficially impact Castle Gardens more than alternatives A and C.

Alternative D restrictions on surface-disturbing activities designed to protect other resources (e.g.,

soil, water, biological resources) would be greater than under alternatives A and C, and similar to,

but moderately less, than under Alternative B because less area would be protected. Alternative

D greater sage-grouse management would be similar to Alternative B, although less restrictive,

which would result in fewer beneficial impacts to Castle Gardens. In light of the limited mineral

potential, it is only in the ROW program where this difference could be even moderate.

Alternative D would classify much more land around Castle Gardens as VRM Class II than

alternatives A and C, and more than Alternative B. However, Alternative D classifies less land

as VRM Class III which would allow far more visually intrusive disturbances than Alternative

B. The overall impact of Alternative D would be greater protection for lands closer to the site

than the other three alternatives, but less protection than Alternative B for lands farther away.

Alternative D would protect most of the sensitive lands from the introduction of development that

would be out of character with the area’s historical and natural settings.

4.7.5.3.13.6.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D would include the same management of Castle Gardens and lands around it for

locatable mineral entry as alternatives A and C. This management would be much less protective

than management under Alternative B, which would require Plans of Operation and would better

protect the historic and natural setting around the site. However, the potential for locatable

minerals around Castle Gardens is low, so the likelihood of impacts from locatable minerals

exploration would be remote.

Alternative D would protects 1,656 acres around the periphery of Castle Gardens from adverse

impacts as a result of leasable/solid minerals development, mineral materials disposals, and

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1216 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

large ROWs (e.g., wind-energy developments farms, power plants, and gas plants). Alternatives

A and C would not protect these acres while Alternative B would protect many more acres

(8,391). Alternative D management would protect the majority of the historic and natural setting

of the cultural resources from potential disturbance, although not as much as Alternative B. This

protection would be most important for oil and gas exploration and large ROWs, which have the

highest potential to occur in the area.

ROW management under Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts to the Castle

Gardens area than Alternative A or C. Alternatives A and C would manage ROWs with standard

stipulations, while similar to Alternative B, Alternative D would manage the area as an avoidance

area for ROWs rather than as an exclusion area. This would provide more protections for the

individual sites and their settings.

4.7.5.3.13.6.4. Special Designations

Similar to Alternative A, the Castle Gardens site and its surroundings would not be located

within any existing ACECs and would not be protected by management for Congressionally

Designated Trails, WSAs, or WSRs.

4.7.5.3.14. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – Sweetwater Rocks

4.7.5.3.14.1. Summary of Impacts

All alternatives would continue to manage the 118,165 acres in the four WSAs in accordance

with BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas. Alternative B would designate

152,347 acres as an ACEC (including the 118,165 acres of the WSAs) and the other alternatives

would have varying types of management with no ACEC designation. Alternative C would result

in the most adverse impacts because it would allow the most surface disturbance in the ACEC

which would adversely impact the viewshed. Alternative A would have fewer adverse impacts,

because the Sweetwater Rocks area (which is not defined) would be avoided for ROWs which

would limit surface disturbance and degradation of the viewshed. Alternative D would be similar

to Alternative A as a result of adverse impacts from livestock grazing. However, Alternative D

would have fewer adverse impacts because ROWs would be required to be within the designated

corridor except in limited circumstances. Alternative B would be the least adverse because the

ACEC designation would have prescriptions designed to prevent almost all surface disturbance in

the ACEC. Because of low mineral potential, this difference may be only moderate in impact

to values of concern.

There is no difference among the alternatives with regard to WSA management, with the

exception of travel management where Alternative B would have greater beneficial impacts.

Alternative B would have greater beneficial impacts due to protections for greater sage-grouse, the

extensive buffer around the NHTs that would protect the viewshed, and the mineral withdrawal

that would limit adverse impacts from mineral material disposals. Alternative D would have a

similar greater sage-grouse buffer as Alternative B, but would have fewer limits on surface

disturbance to protect the NHTs. However, Alternative D's VRM may limit the difference

between the alternatives. There would be very little difference in beneficial impacts to values of

concern between alternatives B and D.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1217

4.7.5.3.14.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The Sweetwater Rocks consist of the granite outcroppings visible to the north along Highway

287. The Sweetwater Rocks include four WSAs identified in the 1987 RMP and EIS ROD,

which are separated by narrow bands of non-WSA lands. The granite is unusual geologically

because it tops an otherwise buried ancient mountain range. See the ACEC Report for additional

information. The area is an international and national tourist destination, where recreationists,

particularly rock climbers, use the area extensively. The values of concern are the view of the

Sweetwater Rocks from the south, and the viewshed looking out of the WSAs.

Under all alternatives, limitations on surface disturbance would beneficially impact ACEC

values, including viewshed and habitat. Conversely, surface disturbance would adversely impact

ACEC values.

Fuels and fire management objectives are the same under all alternatives, although the alternatives

would vary in the amount of vegetative treatment within view of the Sweetwater Rocks each year.

Forest and grassland-shrubland management would not result in impacts under any alternative.

The ACEC is not significant for wildlife values and impacts to these values are not analyzed.

All alternatives would allow livestock grazing. Impacts to the ACEC from livestock grazing

would not vary by alternative and are not analyzed.

None of the alternatives analyze whether the granite in the ACEC is subject to claim as a locatable

mineral. Such a determination could only be made in response to a specific application when

the quality of the granite as a locatable mineral would need to be analyzed. The likelihood of

such a proposal is considered low. If a proposal were made, it would need to be evaluated in a

site-specific EIS and approved only through an RMP amendment. Although the alternatives

would vary in locatable mineral management, because of the low potential, the difference in

impacts is anticipated to be minimal and is not analyzed.

Alternative B would designate 152,347 acres as an ACEC which includes the four WSAs as well

as the area around them, to protect the view of the Sweetwater Rocks and the view from the

WSAs. This area is called “the ACEC” under all alternatives to refer to the same 152,347 acres,

although none of the other alternatives would designate this area as an ACEC.

Under alternatives B, C, and D, Lost Creek would be designated as a ROW corridor. Alternative

A does not designate Lost Creek as a ROW corridor because it was not addressed in the 1987

ROD. However, Lost Creek is currently managed as a ROW corridor and existing management

practice is to co-locate other ROWs with existing ROW. Therefore, Lost Creek is not further

analyzed. The alternatives would vary in their management of other ROWs within the ACEC.

4.7.5.3.14.3. Alternative A

4.7.5.3.14.3.1. Program Management

The 1987 RMP and EIS ROD designated four areas in the ACEC as WSAs, but did not apply

any special management to the area around the WSAs that make up the rest of the ACEC. The

WSAs were found to be significant visual and geologic resources, and the view of the WSAs as

well as the view from the WSAs were found to be significant. No portion of the area is managed

under an MLP.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1218 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.14.3.2. Resources

Management actions from other programs that protect physical values and viewsheds would

directly benefit ACEC values.

Because the view from the ACEC is considered a contributing value, management that protects

against INNS infestation would beneficially impact ACEC values. Alternative A would continue

vegetative treatments in the ACEC at historic levels. Alternative A would result in more adverse

impacts from INNS because it does not require weed-free feed or livestock flushing.

Alternative A wildlife management includes limited protections for greater sage-grouse. The

alternative would close 1⁄4 mile around leks to surface disturbance and would not limit the number

of energy developments or place caps on surface disturbance in the ACEC or the area outside the

ACEC within its viewshed.

Alternative A VRM would result in beneficial impacts to visual and geologic resources in

the ACEC by retaining the existing character of the landscape within and adjacent to the

ACEC with VRM Class II and Class III management, which should limit visual intrusions and

surface-disturbing activities. This would beneficially impact visual resources.

4.7.5.3.14.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A manages fluid/solid minerals leasing in the ACEC with standard stipulations and

does not require an MLP in any portion of the ACEC. However, the potential for fluid/solid

leasable minerals in the area is low to none, as would be expected in light of the ACEC geologic

formation as a granite mountain range. Alternative A does not withdraw the ACEC from locatable

mineral entry, but there is no identified potential for locatable minerals in the area. If potential

were identified, Alternative A would not require Plans of Operation, which would adversely

impact ACEC values. Alternative A manages the ACEC to allow mineral materials disposal on

a case-by-case basis, which could adversely impact ACEC values. Previous mineral materials

disposals have caused irreversible adverse impacts to geologic resources.

Alternative A manages the WSAs and the lands between them as avoidance areas for major

ROWs and corridors, which would adversely impact ACEC values when ROWs are authorized.

Increasingly, the areas between the WSAs are becoming filled or are otherwise unsuitable for

ROW use, but surface disturbance from ROWs could adversely impact the parts of ACEC outside

the WSAs. While it is possible that some projects could be sited in a way that would minimize or

mitigate adverse impacts, it is more likely that a ROW, particularly a high-profile development

such as an industrial wind-energy development, would adversely impact ACEC values if placed

near VRM Class II visual resources. The ACEC has high potential for wind-energy resources, the

development of which would adversely impact the viewshed.

Alternative A recreation management does not address ACEC values and does not guarantee the

recreational setting. Therefore, there would be no beneficial impacts to ACEC values, particularly

the view from the WSAs. Alternative A limits motorized vehicle travel to existing roads and

trails, which would not protect ACEC values. However, the adverse impact of this management

would be minimal because of the limited number of roads in the area.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1219

4.7.5.3.14.3.4. Special Designations

Alternative A manages the four WSAs in accordance with BLM Manual 6330, Management of

Wilderness Study Areas. There is no other special designation management, including ACEC

designation. Alternative A management of the NHTs would not beneficially impact the ACEC

because that management primarily prohibits surface disturbance within 1⁄4 mile of NHTs, but

in most cases, not beyond. Therefore, it is not anticipated that Alternative A would result in

beneficial impacts to the setting of the ACEC.

4.7.5.3.14.4. Alternative B

4.7.5.3.14.4.1. Program Management

Alternative B would designate 152,347 acres as an ACEC for recreation values, unique geological

values, and scenic values. Alternative B's management emphasizes resource protections which

support values of concern. Alternative B would limit surface disturbance and would provide the

most protections for wildlife and cultural resources which beneficially impacts ACEC values.

Alternative B would close the entire ACEC to oil and gas leasing and does not require an MLP in

any portion of the ACEC.

4.7.5.3.14.4.2. Resources

Alternative B management of air quality, soil, and water resources would limit surface disturbance

by expanding the riparian-wetland buffer from 500 feet to 1,320 feet, and would close slopes

steeper than 15 percent to surface disturbance. This management would be more beneficial

to ACEC values than Alternative A, which restricts surface disturbance in a smaller area.

Alternative B would implement a proactive approach to reduce emissions and improve air quality,

which could improve the view of the ACEC from Highway 287 and the view from the ACEC.

Alternative B would be more proactive in addressing the link between BLM-permitted activity

and the spread of invasive plant species. The presence of invasive plant species would adversely

impact visual resources, not only because of the different appearance of invasive plant species

than native vegetation but because of the more intense fire regimes associated with heavy invasive

plant species infestation. Additional impacts from INNS management are discussed below under

livestock grazing.

Alternative B wildlife management would result in substantially more beneficial impacts to the

ACEC because of protections for greater sage-grouse habitat. The ACEC is in the sage-grouse

Core Area and limitations on surface disturbance for the protection of greater sage-grouse

would beneficially impact the ACEC viewshed. Alternative B wildlife management closes the

ACEC to mineral and realty disturbances and prohibits other surface disturbance, such as range

improvement projects, within the lek boundaries. Outside the ACEC, Alternative B would limit

the number of mineral leasing and energy ROW projects per section and would apply a cap on

surface disturbance.

Alternative B VRM would result in greater beneficial impacts to the ACEC than Alternative A

because changes in the characteristic landscape would be low and not attract the attention of the

casual observer. This management would limit obtrusive development that would adversely

impact the ACEC setting and view.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1220 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.14.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B management of locatable, leasable, and mineral materials disposals would be

more protective of ACEC values than Alternative A. Alternative B would close the ACEC to

all mineral activity, including withdrawing it from locatable mineral entry. The primary benefit

of this management would be the protection of ACEC values from adverse impacts of mineral

materials disposals. The granite in the ACEC is desirable for AML projects and road building, and

additional disposals would result in adverse impacts to the granite in the ACEC and the ACEC

viewsheds. Alternative B would result in minimal beneficial impacts from the other minerals

management compared to Alternative A because the potential for such minerals is so low.

Alternative B management of wind-energy development and major ROWs and corridors, would

be more beneficial to ACEC values than Alternative A, because Alternative B would manage the

area as an exclusion area for these realty actions, whereas Alternative A avoids the Sweetwater

Rocks area, which is undefined. Demand is anticipated to be moderately high for ROWs.

Alternative B livestock grazing management would be less adverse to values of concern

than Alternative A because rangeland health would be achieved through non-infrastructure

management. Fences and water developments would cause surface disturbance and tend to

concentrate livestock in a manner that could intrude on the views of and from the ACEC.

Alternative B could result in more beneficial impacts to vegetation and thus visual resources by

allowing the Authorized Officer to require livestock flushing before animals are turned out on

public lands, if it appears they have ingested INNS. In addition, the INNS program could benefit

from additional vegetation treatments that would be undertaken since range improvement projects

under Alternative B would be limited to non-infrastructure projects such as vegetation treatment.

Alternative B recreation management would be similar to Alternative A and would result

in similar impacts. Alternative B would limit travel to designated roads and trails, with

implementation-level planning to meet management requirements. This would beneficially

impact the ACEC, but only in the long term. Alternative B travel management would have modest

beneficial impacts to recreation values in the WSAs but would also limit access. The ACEC has

few roads so this difference in impacts would be minimal.

4.7.5.3.14.4.4. Special Designations

Alternative B management of other special designations (in addition to the Sweetwater Rocks

ACEC) would beneficially impact the viewshed from the ACEC. The entire area around the

ACEC would be closed to surface disturbance from mineral development and ROWs because of

the management prescriptions for the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC

and the NHT ACEC. This would beneficially impact the ACEC setting more than management

under Alternative A. There is uranium potential to the north and east of the Sweetwater Rocks

ACEC. It is possible that the Alternative B withdrawal of the greater Government Draw/Upper

Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC from minerals development would benefit the Sweetwater Rocks

ACEC by limiting disturbance in its viewshed from the development of that uranium. However,

that determination would require a site-specific analysis.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1221

4.7.5.3.14.5. Alternative C

4.7.5.3.14.5.1. Program Management

Alternative C would not designate the Sweetwater Rocks ACEC. Rather, Alternative C

management would emphasize resource use and could adversely impact the ACEC and its

viewshed. Alternative C designates the Lost Creek corridor but would consider other locations

for ROW. Alternative C would manage greater sage-grouse similar to Alternative A, although

with fewer limits on surface disturbance. Alternative C would not manage any portion of the

area under an MLP.

4.7.5.3.14.5.2. Resources

The Alternative C emphasis on resource uses over physical and biological resources would

result in more impacts to raptors and the visual and geologic resources in the ACEC. Unlike

Alternative B, Alternative C does not proactively manage air quality, and manages water and soil

with standard stipulations. INNS management under Alternative C would be comparable to

Alternative A and would have fewer beneficial impacts to values of concern than Alternative B.

Alternative C wildlife habitat management, particularly for greater sage-grouse, is the same as

Alternative A and would not result in similar beneficial impacts as described under Alternative B.

Alternative C VRM in the ACEC and the surrounding area, would result in more adverse impacts

to ACEC values than Alternative B, because Alternative C allows changes to the landscape

that would adversely impact the viewshed.

4.7.5.3.14.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C management of minerals would result in more adverse impacts to ACEC values

than either Alternative A or B since the entire area is open to development and an MLP is not

required. Alternative C management of major ROWs and corridors, including wind-energy

development and transmission lines, would result in more adverse impacts to visual resources

than Alternative B, which manages the area as an exclusion area for these developments. The

area north of the ACEC has high potential for wind-energy development but it is likely that

transmission would travel out to the Casper Field Office. However, demand for pipelines and

other ROWs could adversely impact viewshed.

Alternative C could result in fewer beneficial impacts to vegetation because it does not allow the

Authorized Officer to require livestock flushing. Since livestock grazing management would

continue to develop infrastructure, although at a lower rate than Alternative A, there would be

fewer vegetation treatments undertaken than would occur under Alternative B. Alternative C

would have the same risk of INNS infestation that is present under Alternative A that is associated

with the surface disturbance in constructing infrastructure.

Alternative C does not guarantee recreational setting or experience and therefore would not

provide protections to ACEC values. Recreation per se would not be expected to result in adverse

impacts to ACEC values. Impacts to the ACEC from travel management would be slightly more

adverse under Alternative C than Alternative B, and similar to impacts under Alternative A. This

impact would be long-term and would not be evident in the short term.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1222 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.14.5.4. Special Designations

Management in general without ACEC designation would result in long-term adverse impacts

similar to Alternative A over portions of the ACEC not in the WSAs, although likely more severe

because of Alternative C's less restrictive ROW management. See the Alternative B analysis

contrasting the Alternative B proactive management and the management under alternatives

A and C.

4.7.5.3.14.6. Alternative D

4.7.5.3.14.6.1. Program Management

Alternative D would not designate the area as an ACEC. Program management under Alternative

D is very similar to Alternative A except in the portion of the ACEC that is managed with an

MLP. The primary differences are that Alternative D would have more limits on authorizing

ROWs, limit substantially more surface disturbance to protect greater sage-grouse and limit

mineral material disposals to identified existing areas, which would all protect values of concern.

Required Design Features would help to limit the adverse impacts that would otherwise result

from development that would be allowed under the VRM classification of the area.

4.7.5.3.14.6.2. Resources

Alternative D management of air quality, soil, and water resources would limit surface

disturbance in the same way as Alternative A, which would be somewhat less protective of ACEC

values than Alternative B. Alternative D would also be more proactive in addressing the link

between BLM-permitted activities and the spread of invasive plant species than Alternative A or

Alternative C. The presence of invasive plant species would adversely impact visual resources,

not only because of the different appearance of invasive plant species than native vegetation,

but also because of the more intense fire regimes associated with heavy invasive plant species

infestation which would adversely impact visual resources.

Alternative D includes wildlife management that would result in beneficial impacts to the

ACEC viewshed similar to Alternative B. The limits on surface disturbance for the protections

of greater sage-grouse would make 3,147 acres closed to surface-disturbing activities but to a

smaller degree. Alternative D would designate fewer areas as ACECs than Alternative B and the

protections for greater sage-grouse habitat under Alternative D would become more important in

the protections they afford the Sweetwater Rocks viewshed. Alternative D would limit surface

disturbance on 3,147 acres in the ACEC for protection of leks and a substantial number of acres in

the viewshed outside the ACEC. While the beneficial impacts of this management would have

to be identified in a site-specific analysis, this benefit would likely be substantial because there

are a number of leks in the viewshed. In addition, the Alternative D adoption of the Core Area

concept with one energy development per section and a cap on surface disturbance (although an

area twice as large as the one under Alternative B) would limit unreclaimed surface disturbance

inside and outside the ACEC.

Alternative D VRM is very similar to Alternative B, and would result in many more beneficial

impacts to ACEC values than Alternative A or Alternative C. Under Alternative D, the change in

the characteristic landscape would be minimal and would not attract the attention of the casual

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1223

observer. This management would limit obtrusive development that would adversely impact

the ACEC setting and view.

4.7.5.3.14.6.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D locatable, leasable, and minerals material disposals management would result in

adverse impacts to ACEC values very similar to alternatives A and C, and more adverse than

Alternative B. Unlike Alternative B, Alternative D would not close the ACEC to all mineral

activity. However, there is low potential for locatable or leasable minerals in the ACEC, so

any impacts would be low. Moreover, the relevant and important benefits of the area would be

protected by other mineral management including the Beaver Rim MLP and the NTMC as well as

limits on surface disturbance in greater sage-grouse Core Area. Alternative D would result in

the same important beneficial impacts to ACEC values as Alternative B by closing the area to

mineral material disposals except in existing mineral disposal sites. Materials disposal would be

the primary threat to ACEC values because the granite in the ACEC is desirable for AML projects

and road building, and additional disposals would adversely impact the granite in the ACEC and

the viewsheds. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D would guard against this threat.

ROW management would result in similar beneficial impacts to values of concern as Alternative

B and fewer adverse impacts than alternatives A and C because Alternative D would constrain

visually intrusive ROWs. Alternative D’s livestock grazing management could result in similar

adverse impacts to vegetation as Alternative C by increasing surface disturbance with the

potential for INNS spread. Vegetation treatments would have a small to moderate adverse impact

on the viewshed but less so than Alternative A.

Alternative D recreation management would be similar to Alternative B except that the

undeveloped SRMA is smaller. This would beneficially impact ACEC values because no

development or structures are likely to be proposed that would adversely impact the ACEC. There

would be little difference in impacts from recreation management among the alternatives. Similar

to alternatives A and C, Alternative D would limit travel to existing roads and trails. This would

result in fewer beneficial impacts to ACEC values than Alternative B, but only in the long term.

4.7.5.3.14.6.4. Special Designations

Alternative D management of other special designations would result in fewer beneficial impacts

to ACEC values than Alternative B, but more than Alternative A or C. Part of the Sweetwater

Rocks ACEC is outside the NTMC, but would be beneficially impacted by the NTMC. The

limits on surface disturbance for the protection of trails would beneficially impact the ACEC

and its viewshed. Coupled with the management of greater sage-grouse habitat, Alternative D

management would result in beneficial impacts more similar to Alternative B than to Alternative

A or Alternative C.

4.7.5.3.15. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – Regional Historic Trails and

Early Highways

Several historic wagon roads and stage trails played prominent roles in the settlement and

development of South Pass, the Wind River Basin, and the Sweetwater Valley in the latter half

of the 19th Century. These trails originated in the Rock Springs area (the Green River to South

Pass to Fort Washakie Stage Trail and the Point of Rocks to South Pass Stage Trail), Rawlins

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1224 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

(the Rawlins to Fort Washakie Stage Trail), and the Casper area (the Bridger Trail and the

Casper to Lander Road Trail). Some of the early trails also led into the Bighorn Basin, and were

instrumental in the settlement and development of that area (the Bridger Trail and the Birdseye

Pass Stage Trail). A little later, early automobile roads that advertised the way to Yellowstone

and other national parks became important arteries for development, commerce, and tourism (the

Yellowstone Highway/National Park to Park Highway). All of these historic trails and early

highways are eligible for listing on the NRHP and are considered worthy of protection. Their

intact portions are often in good shape, and they often have historic settings that still evoke the

appearance of the landscape in the late 1800s or early 1900s.

Adverse impacts to these types of resources typically result in a loss of integrity of the resource,

or in some cases, in a loss of information. Adverse impacts to significant trails resources on

BLM-administered lands happen for several reasons, including actions that physically damage or

destroy all or parts of a historic trail or highway; actions that alter a significant element of a trail;

actions that introduce visual, atmospheric (air), or audible (noise) elements that can diminish the

historical integrity of a trail or highway; or a lack of action, which can allow a trail resource to

deteriorate. Increased access to areas also can adversely impact trails resources by increasing

use, erosion, looting, and vandalism.

These regionally significant historic trails and early highways are all significant for their

associations with important events in American history. In the planning area, these resources also

are significant for their good to excellent historical settings, which help visitors imagine what

it was like along these trails in the 1800s and the early 1900s. Adverse impacts to these values

can result from the actions described above, and the impacts would be short-term and long-term

because some of the impacts could be reversed but others cannot.

In some cases, historic trail and highway resources also are significant for their scientific data

potential, especially at associated historic sites along the trails and highways. Actions that cause

physical damage, and sometimes neglect, can adversely impact these resources. Adverse impacts

to these types of resources would be long-term because, once they are damaged or disturbed, the

impacts cannot be reversed.

Beneficial impacts to trails and highways occur from special management measures that could

enhance the quality of that resource. Stabilization of historic inscriptions along the Bridger Trail

and erosion control measures along the trails are examples of actions that result in beneficial

impacts. Most beneficial impacts would be long-term, but eventually, adverse natural and/or

human influences would require more measures to keep these resources from degrading.

4.7.5.3.15.1. Summary of Impacts

Impacts to RHT&EHs would vary by alternative in the following ways: alternatives A and C are

similar in their protections, but Alternative A generally provides more protection than Alternative

C. Alternatives A and C focus on protecting the immediate area around the RHT&EHs, but do

not address impacts to visual resources farther from the trails. Alternatives B and D would

provide much better protection for these resources and protect their historic settings to a moderate

to high degree.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1225

4.7.5.3.15.2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Standard procedures have been developed over the years to help address potential adverse impacts

to regionally-significant historic trails and early highways. Standard management and protection

procedures, guided by the NHPA, include avoidance, screening projects from the trails behind

natural features, innovative redesign or camouflaging of projects, and using existing disturbances

near trails for the placement of projects. These standard procedures have protected trails resources

from adverse impacts in many cases. If these procedures have not been feasible, other measures

(e.g., historical research, interpretive signage, special easements, and land purchases) have been

used to offset impacts to the trails. All of the alternatives are guided by these standard procedures.

However, the standard procedures have not always adequately protected the historic settings of

historic trails and highways. For example, large and visible projects some distance away have

affected their intact historic settings. A modern gas plant a few miles from the Bridger Trail and

a well pad near the Rawlins-Fort Washakie Stage Trail have resulted in adverse impacts to the

historical setting of the trails and their historical integrity.

The standard procedures also do not apply to locatable mineral exploration projects of 5 acres or

less, which do not require Plans of Operation. These operations do not require BLM approval,

and could adversely impact historic trail and early highway resources if necessary for mining

operations to proceed. Locatable minerals projects over 5 acres are subject to the 43 CFR 3809

regulations, which offer minimal protections to trails resources.

Another type of adverse impact on trails resources common to all alternatives would be from

increased public use of lands, which can occur for several reasons. One reason would be improved

access to formerly remote areas which is common in areas where development allows for the

creation of new roads. Increased popularity and availability of OHVs, also allows access to

formerly remote areas. A third reason would be increased public interest in specific historic sites

or areas. As public use of lands increases, so can the adverse impacts to historic trail and early

highway resources. As more use occurs, more trails are driven over. Some of these resources

have been looted or vandalized. This impact would occur under any of the alternatives because

access, OHV use, and public use and interest along the historic trails and early highways are all

expected to increase.

A beneficial impact common to all alternatives would be the indirect protection provided by the

greater sage-grouse Core Area management policy. Approximately 60 percent of the RHT&EHs

and their surroundings are located within the Core Area. This would reduce impacts to their

settings.

Fire management, including the use of heavy equipment, does not vary substantially by alternative

when culturally sensitive resources are involved. Accordingly, the impacts from fire suppression

activities would not vary by alternative.

4.7.5.3.15.3. Alternative A

4.7.5.3.15.3.1. Program Management

In the 1980s, the Wyoming BLM began applying stipulations to oil and gas leases that specified

that development projects would be avoided within 1⁄4 mile of a historic trail. This stipulation,

together with NHPA regulations, provided some protection for historic trails and early highways

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1226 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

from modern impacts. The protection and management procedures developed at that time, are

still in use. Impacts to trails from this management are considered to be beneficial near the

trails, while farther away from the trails, they are considered adverse because of the potential to

introduce new intrusions into the historical setting.

4.7.5.3.15.3.2. Resources

Alternative A air quality management would result in a neutral or slightly adverse impact to

RHT&EHs. Efforts to maintain air quality around the trails would help maintain their important

qualities. However, if air quality degrades, it would adversely impact the trails.

VRM Class ratings that protect natural viewsheds would beneficially impact RHT&EHs by

moderating modern development in an area. However, Alternative A manages most of the trails

and highways as VRM Class IV, which would allow a wide range of visual intrusions. Therefore,

Alternative A VRM would adversely impact these resources.

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water,

biological resources, and special designations) under Alternative A would provide additional

protections for historic trail and highway resources.

4.7.5.3.15.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative A provides mostly minimal protection from locatable mineral exploration, except

where there are withdrawals or ACECs. This alternative provides minimal protection from

locatable mineral exploration under the standard of preventing unnecessary or undue degradation.

No Plan of Operations is required for exploration projects unless they would disturb more

than 5 acres, so historic trails and highways would be subject to less protection from mineral

exploration impacts. Some of the trails are in areas of high potential for locatable minerals

(the Rawlins-Fort Washakie Trail in uranium areas, and the Green River to South Pass to Fort

Washakie and the Point of Rock to South Pass Trails in gold mining areas); some are in areas

with low potential. Therefore, Alternative A impacts to historic trails and highways would be

both adverse and neutral.

Alternative A would provide more protections from leasable fluid minerals, leasable solid

minerals, and mineral materials disposals than for locatable minerals. Alternative A includes

NSO restrictions within 1⁄4 mile on either side of trails, and enforces close-type stipulations

to protect trails resources. However, outside the 1⁄4-mile on either side buffer, there are no

protections for historic trails and highways specific to development which could adversely impact

the historic settings of trails. At present, these impacts are managed on a case-by-case basis, and

current protection measures usually focus on reducing impacts rather than preventing them. The

most likely impact to the trails and early highways would be from oil and gas development

in the middle and northern Wind River Basin, which would impact the Bridger Trail, the

Yellowstone/National Park to Park Highway Trail, the Casper to Lander Road, and the Rawlins

to Fort Washakie Stage Trail. Current management protects the immediate foreground of the

RHT&EHs, but is limited in protecting the historic settings of the trails outside of this area.

Therefore, impacts under Alternative A would be both beneficial and adverse.

Highly visible ROW and other development projects, such as wind-energy developments, mines,

gas plants, power plants, and large transmission lines, would adversely impact historic trails and

highways in substantial ways. For example, a wind-energy development or gas plant near a trail

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1227

with good historical settings would introduce a modern contrast that would adversely impact the

trail’s value as a historic resource. Alternative A includes no protections from these types of

projects other than standard NHPA measures.

Adverse impacts to RHT&EHs under Alternative A from range development projects would be

similar to other developments. However, because of their lower profile, they often have a lower

contrast with the historic settings. Avoidance-type stipulations for range developments within 1⁄4

mile either side of trails are enforced to protect trails resources. However, outside the 1⁄4-mile

buffer, there are no protections specific to development for the trails, and their historic settings

would be subject to adverse impacts. At present, these impacts are managed on a case-by-case

basis, and current protection measures usually focus on reducing impacts rather than preventing

them. The most likely adverse impact to historic trails would be from fencing projects that

cross them. Such fences are periodically proposed. Therefore, the impacts under Alternative A

would be both beneficial and adverse.

4.7.5.3.15.3.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative A, RHT&EHs would not be covered by any special designations and would not

be protected unless they traverse a specially designated area.

4.7.5.3.15.4. Alternative B

4.7.5.3.15.4.1. Program Management

Alternative B would provide for a somewhat higher level of proactive management than

Alternative A. Actively pursuing opportunities to reduce modern visual intrusions along the

regional trails and highways would be a beneficial impact.

4.7.5.3.15.4.2. Resources

Alternative B would specify that air quality management reduce emissions and improve air

quality. This action would have a beneficial impact on the historic trails and highways, and would

make Alternative B more beneficial to the RHT&EHs than Alternative A.

Wildlife management under Alternative B is much more protective than under Alternative A and

would prohibit surface disturbance in many more areas than under Alternative A. This would

result in greater beneficial impacts to ACEC values than under Alternative A. By limiting fences

and roads in crucial big game winter range and prohibiting surface disturbance within 0.6 miles of

sage-grouse leks, Alternative B would reduce the amount of surface disturbance which would

beneficially impact the RHT&EHs by limiting modern intrusions into the historic settings. In

addition, the Alternative B Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC (see below)

would result in additional beneficial impacts to RHT&EHs.

Alternative B classifies more lands as VRM Class I or II than Alternative A, and this would help

protect some of the RHT&EHs from potential disturbances caused by developments. While VRM

for the trails and highways in the northern half of the planning area is not substantially different

than under Alternative A, the trails in the southern half of the planning area are in a VRM Class II

area under Alternative B, which would provide substantially better protection for these resources

than Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1228 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water,

biological resources, and special designations) would be greatest under Alternative B, providing

additional protection for RHT&EHs and reducing adverse impacts.

4.7.5.3.15.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B would propose to withdraw lands for 1⁄2 mile on each side of RHT&EHs from

locatable minerals entry. This would better protect RHT&EHs than Alternative A. This 1⁄2-mile

withdrawal means more of the historical setting of the trails and highways would be protected

from the impacts of locatable minerals development. This would be a substantial benefit for

trails in the South Pass and south of Green Mountain areas, where mining impacts would be

most likely along the trails.

Leasable fluid minerals management under Alternative B closes 1,851,349 more acres than

Alternative A which would help protect some of the trail and highway resources from potential

disturbances. While fluid minerals management for the trails and highways in the northern half of

the planning area would not change substantially, the trails in the southern half of the planning

area (the Rawlins to Fort Washakie, Green River to South Pass to Fort Washakie, and Point

of Rocks to South Pass Stage Trails) are in a closed area, which would provide much better

protection for these resources than Alternative A.

Alternative B would close or place major constraints on solid mineral exploration and

development, and mineral materials disposals on most of the lands in the planning area. This

would protect RHT&EHs from potential disturbances. Most of the trails and almost all of their

historical settings are closed to development, so Alternative B would provide much better

protection than Alternative A. No impacts are expected from solid minerals activities and mineral

materials disposals under Alternative B.

Alternative B would restrict wind-energy developments, power and gas plants, and large ROWs

to a much greater extent than Alternative A. Alternative B protects most of RHT&EHs, which

would more beneficially impact those resources than management under Alternative A.

Alternative B avoids visible range development projects on more land than does Alternative A

and this management would protect RHT&EHs from potential disturbances. The trails are closed

to visible range developments for a distance of 2 miles on either side, therefore, Alternative B

would provide much better protection than Alternative A and no impacts would be expected. This

mostly affects fencing projects that would cross the trails, which are periodically proposed.

4.7.5.3.15.4.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative B, the RHT&EHs ACEC would extend to 1⁄2 mile on each side of the trails.

This would enhance the protection of trails and highways by reducing the potential for adverse

impacts to their intact historical settings. This alternative would provide more protection for the

trails over Alternative A. The regional trails in the southern part of the planning area overlap with

the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC and some with the Congressionally

Designated Trails and South Pass Historic Mining Area ACECs, so the setting for these trails is

further protected by the limits on surface disturbance from the other ACECs.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1229

4.7.5.3.15.5. Alternative C

4.7.5.3.15.5.1. Program Management

Alternative C would maintain proactive management of the regional trails to a similar level as

Alternative A. Both alternatives are designed to remove modern intrusions along the trails and

highways on a case-by-case basis. Alternative C would not designate any ACECs.

4.7.5.3.15.5.2. Resources

Alternative C would have the same impact on air quality as Alternative A, and the same neutral to

slightly adverse impacts to the RHT&EHs. Alternative C has the same or slightly less soil and

riparian-wetland protections as Alternative A, and would result in the same limited beneficial

impacts to trails by limiting surface disturbance.

Because Alternative C would place a greater emphasis on resource use and include fewer

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water,

biological resources, and special designations). This alternative would result in more adverse

impacts to RHT&EHs than alternatives A and B. Alternative C manages habitat for greater

sage-grouse in the same way as Alternative A and would result in the same limited beneficial

impacts to the trails' historic setting. Alternative C would result in a much less beneficial impact

than management under Alternative B.

Alternative C includes 179,138 fewer acres of VRM Class I and II than Alternative A, which

would result in less protection for RHT&EHs. Almost all of the historic trails and highways

are in VRM Class III or IV, so Alternative C would allow more modern developments around

the trails, and would cause more adverse impacts than Alternative A and substantially more

than Alternative B.

4.7.5.3.15.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C would provide no protection for RHT&EHs from locatable mineral exploration,

applying only minimal protection from locatable mineral exploration via standard prevention of

undue or unnecessary degradation requirements. A Plan of Operations would not be required

unless the mining project covers more than 5 acres of disturbance. Impacts would be most likely

to occur in areas of high potential for mining activity, such as trails in the South Pass gold mining

and south of Green Mountain uranium areas. Alternative C would provide the same level of

protection for RHT&EHs as Alternative A, and less than Alternative B.

Under Alternative C, adverse impacts to the regionally-significant historic trails and highways

from leasable fluid/solid minerals and mineral materials would be similar to impacts from

locatable minerals. Very few areas are closed to these uses, so almost all of the RHT&EHs would

be subject to impacts. Impacts would be managed on a case-by-case basis and protection measures

would focus on reducing impacts rather than preventing them. Therefore, Alternative C would

provide less protection for RHT&EHs than Alternative A. The most likely areas to experience

adverse impact from oil and gas development would be the middle and northern Wind River Basin.

Alternative C manages wind-energy development, mines, and large ROWs in the same manner as

Alternative A and the same limited beneficial impacts to trails would occur.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1230 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Adverse impacts to the RHT&EHs from range development projects would be similar under

Alternative C as under Alternative A.

4.7.5.3.15.5.4. Special Designations

Under Alternative C, there would be no special designations except the Congressionally

Designated Trails. Under this alternative, the historic trails and highways would be open to

adverse impacts along most of their lengths since any protections provided by ACEC designation

would not occur. Therefore, Alternative C would have more adverse impacts than Alternative A.

4.7.5.3.15.6. Alternative D

4.7.5.3.15.6.1. Program Management

Alternative D would maintain proactive management to the same level as alternatives A and C.

These alternatives were designed to remove modern intrusions along the trails and highways

on a case-by-case basis. This would be less beneficial management than Alternative B, which

establishes intact portions of the trails as an ACEC comprised of the areas extending out 1⁄4

mile on either side of the regional historic trails. Alternative B would provide much better

protection for the regional historic trails than Alternative D and reduce the adverse impacts of

development in the settings of the trails. Required Design Features would reduce the adverse

impacts that would result from development. However, segments of the Rawlins-Fort Washakie

State Trail, the remaining segments of the Green River to South Pass to Fort Washakie Stage

Trail, and the Point of Rocks to South Pass Trail in the Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area,

which has extensive limits on mineral development, would have beneficial impacts similar to

those under Alternative B.

4.7.5.3.15.6.2. Resources

Alternative D air quality management is the same as alternatives A and C, and would result in the

same impacts to regional trails and highways. Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for

the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water, biological resources, and special designations)

would be greatest under alternatives B and D, providing additional protections for regional trails

and reducing adverse impacts to the extent that those protections limit surface disturbance within

the settings of the trails.

Alternative D management of habitat for greater sage-grouse would be somewhat less restrictive

of surface disturbance than Alternative B. Nevertheless, Alternative D would limit development

within 0.6 mile of leks, limit the number of disturbances per section, and cap surface disturbance

in the Core Area. This management should reduce the intrusion of modern development in

the historic setting of the trails, which would be a long-term beneficial impact. The Core Area

approach would result in beneficial impacts to the Casper to Lander Road which would not be

protected by any special designation but are located within the greater sage-grouse Core Area.

The segments of the Rawlins-Fort Washakie Stage Trail that are outside of the Hudson-Atlantic

City area (that are part of the sage-grouse ACEC under Alternative B) would benefit from the

limits on disturbance to protect Core Area and the protections afforded by the NTMC.

Alternative D would classify much more land around trails and highways as VRM Class II than

Alternative A or C, and slightly more than Alternative B. However, this alternative classifies more

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1231

land as VRM Class III compared to Alternative B. The overall beneficial impact of Alternative D

management would be to protect lands closer to the site better than the other three alternatives,

but to afford less protection than Alternative B for lands farther away. Alternative D would

protect most sensitive lands from the introduction of developments that would be out of character

with the area’s historical and natural settings.

4.7.5.3.15.6.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D would provide little or no protection for RHT&EHs from locatable mineral

exploration. Similar to alternatives A and C, Alternative D would provide minimal protection

from locatable mineral exploration under the standard of preventing undue or unnecessary

degradation. No Plan of Operations is required for exploration projects unless they would disturb

more than 5 acres, so historic trails and early highways would be subject to less protection from

exploration impacts. This management could adversely impact historical trails, especially in areas

of high potential for mining activity, such as trails in the South Pass gold mining and south of

Green Mountain uranium areas. Therefore, Alternative D would provide for a similar level of

protection for historic trails and highways as alternatives A and C, and less than Alternative B.

The regional trails in areas where locatable mineral withdrawals will be pursued would have

similar beneficial impacts to those under Alternative B. Impacts to the other segments, unless they

fall within the NTMC, would have more adverse impacts. This would be especially likely to occur

on the section of the Rawlins-Fort Washakie Stage Trail going south from Jeffrey City, which

would be adversely impacted by uranium development and by the Bison Basin and Bison Basin

Extension designated corridors. The setting of the Stage Trail has been severely compromised by

existing disturbance, a trend that would likely continue under all alternatives.

For leasable fluid and solid minerals, mineral materials disposals, and ROWs, Alternative D

breaks management of the RHT&EHs into two categories: within DDAs and outside DDAs.

Within DDAs, resource uses would be open while outside DDAs, resource uses would be subject

to protection of historic settings up to 2 miles through the use of BMPs. Alternative C would not

protect trails, Alternative A would protect them to a lesser extent than Alternative D (up to 1⁄4

mile either side), and Alternative B would protect them up to 5 miles on either side. Therefore,

Alternative D would protect RHT&EH resources better than alternatives A and C, but not as

well as Alternative B.

4.7.5.3.15.6.4. Special Designations

No portions of the RHT&EHs would be managed as a special designation under this alternative,

except those in an area managed as an ACEC for other values, such as the Point of Rocks to

South Pass Stage Trail. This would result in fewer beneficial impacts than the Alternative B

ACEC designation, which enhances the protection of the site and its surroundings by reducing

the potential for adverse impacts to its intact natural settings. However, Alternative D would

beneficially impact segments of the regional trails through limits on surface disturbance and VRM

designed to benefit other programs, including the NTMC, the Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City

area, and the South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC. Management in these areas would help

protect the historic settings of regional trails.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1232 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.7.5.3.16. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives – Government Draw/Upper

Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

4.7.5.3.16.1. Summary of Impacts

Alternatives A and C would have similar adverse impacts in that neither designates the area as

an ACEC and manages with standard stipulations. Both have more limited greater sage-grouse

protections from surface disturbance and thus would have a greater potential to adversely impact

more acres of greater sage-grouse habitat. Alternatives B and D would have far fewer adverse

impacts because surface disturbance would be more limited under both alternatives, although

more so in Alternative B than Alternative D.

Alternative B would have the most beneficial impacts because it designates 1,246,791 acres as an

ACEC with management prescriptions to protect sage-grouse habitat; Alternative D manages

35,102 acres as the Twin Creek ACEC. Alternative B greater sage-grouse management would

reduce the amount and intensity of energy development to a greater extent than Alternative D,

but this is not likely to result in a major difference in beneficial impacts because of the low

potential for oil and gas development. Requirements for Plans of Operations, triggered by ACEC

designation, would apply to both alternatives B and D but would result in more beneficial impacts

under Alternative B because a larger area is designated as an ACEC and therefore subject to

Plans of Operations requirements. However, the relative benefits from a Plan of Operations

under alternatives B and D are to a large extent a moot point given that both areas recommend

withdrawing large areas from locatable mineral entry. Alternative B would pursue withdrawal of

the entire Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC (1,246,791 acres). Under

Alternative D, the western-most portion of the area designated as the Government Draw/Upper

Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC under Alternative B, which includes the Twin Creek ACEC, is

withdrawn from locatable mineral entry for the benefit of wildlife habitat (including mule deer,

moose, elk, and greater sage-grouse) and other values. This area, called the Hudson-Atlantic City

area, has other management prescriptions that benefit the relevant and important values of the

area, but only to the north and west of the Sweetwater River. The lands outside the NTMC have

no management protections beyond those afforded by the Core Area strategy.

4.7.5.3.16.2. Background Information

Before the Wyoming Governor’s Sage-grouse Core Area was established, the Local Sage-Grouse

Working Group identified an area in Government Draw and the Upper Sweetwater River as

an important area for greater sage-grouse and recommended that the BLM implement special

management for the area because of its very high concentration of greater sage-grouse leks

and associated habitats. Data for this population provides information regarding its year-round

movement and this information was used to establish the boundaries of the Local Working

Group's proposed ACEC. This area contains 306,360 acres.

Subsequently, the WGFD proposed a much larger geographic area for management as an ACEC

because this area also had high concentrations of greater sage-grouse in locations that had

not been leased for oil and gas development. There is no site-specific data for the year-round

movement of greater sage-grouse populations for all of this expanded area. The BLM agreed that

greater sage-grouse values in the larger area met the relevance and importance criteria and that

designation of the ACEC should be analyzed. Afterward, the WGFD stated that the position of

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1233

the State of Wyoming is that Core Area management adequately protects greater sage-grouse

values and that ACEC designation is not needed.

However, this determination by the State of Wyoming only addressed the third leg of ACEC

designation: Is special management needed? It did not determine that the values were not relevant

or important. In fact, since the WGFD nomination, the prominence of greater sage-grouse has

become elevated nationally. This change in policy, following the warranted but precluded

decision by the USFWS regarding the listing of the greater sage-grouse under ESA, has identified

greater sage-grouse for special protections. This policy is described in the Chapter 3.

Having determined that the area did meet the relevance and importance criteria for ACEC

designation because of the concentrated, unfragmented nature of the habitat, all alternatives

analyze the impacts of the management decision for the 1,246,791 acres expanded area for the

ACEC. Under alternatives A and C, which do not designate any portion of the expanded area

as an ACEC for the benefit of greater sage-grouse, the impacts from the management of the

expanded area is fully analyzed in the Special Status Species – Wildlife section. Rather than

repeat this analysis, reference is made in each of these sections to the Special Status Species

– Wildlife section with a general statement of the impacts. Alternatives B and D analyze the

site-specific management within the expanded area, which includes the area the Local Working

Group originally proposed as an ACEC. Reference to the Special Status Species – Wildlife section

is still made but site-specific analysis is offered as appropriate.

Consideration of all Core Area and all occupied greater sage-grouse habitat as an ACEC is

analyzed in the Considered But Not Further Analyzed section.

4.7.5.3.16.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The BLM manages greater sage-grouse as a sensitive species under all alternatives. The

prescriptions associated with this approach would vary by alternative with resulting variation in

the impacts to values of concern.

Management actions that protect physical and biological resources through less surface

disturbance or other management restrictions result in beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse.

All alternatives use an IPM approach, which would result in the same impacts to sage-grouse

in all alternatives. All INNS treatments require site-specific analysis to determine impacts to

greater sage-grouse and other values.

Prescribed and wildland fire can adversely impact greater sage-grouse. Since greater sage-grouse

are a BLM sensitive species, it is likely that prescribed fire would be avoided in greater

sage-grouse habitat. Therefore, while the alternatives vary in the acres of vegetation treatment

that would likely occur, the management of wildland fire and the use of prescribed fire would

be likely to be the same under all alternatives in areas identified by the Wyoming Governor's

Executive Order.

Forest management would not result in impacts to greater sage-grouse because forests are

generally not suitable habitat for the species.

Visual resources are not part of the ACEC relevant and important features, but VRM can result in

beneficial impacts to habitat by limiting surface disturbance and precluding vertical structures

that could serve as raptor perches and increase greater sage-grouse predation. Management

under all alternatives would be consistent with general VRM for the area and would not be

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1234 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

specially managed as an ACEC prescription as is the case in Red Canyon and other ACECs for

which visual resources meet relevance and importance criteria. Generally, the lower the VRM

Class (III or IV) for the area, the greater the likelihood of adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse

through surface disturbance.

All mineral development and other surface-disturbing or disruptive activities such as ROWs and

road development would result in adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse, both from habitat loss

and habitat fragmentation as well as the introduction of structures that would offer a predator

perch and a collision hazard. While more surface disturbance results in more adverse impacts,

impacts are thought to be the most important if they occur near a lek or in nesting habitat. See the

Special Status Species – Wildlife section for more information.

4.7.5.3.16.4. Alternative A

4.7.5.3.16.4.1. Program Management

Alternative A would not designate any portion of either the Local Working Group area or the

expanded area as the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC (although

portions of the expanded area would be designated for other values such as the NHTs). Alternative

A would manage the Local Working Group area and the expanded area for a variety of uses

and with a variety of prescriptions. To the extent that this management would benefit wildlife

and sagebrush habitat, it would beneficially impact greater sage-grouse. The Special Status

Species – Wildlife section provides more details about the impacts to greater sage-grouse from

Alternative A and this section does not repeat the information. Generally, Alternative A would

utilize management prescriptions for greater sage-grouse that are less protective than current

research indicates and would be the same as those that have contributed to the downward trend in

greater sage-grouse numbers.

4.7.5.3.16.4.2. Resources

Alternative A management in the expanded area is consistent with management described in the

Special Status Species – Wildlife section and impacts would be the same.

4.7.5.3.16.4.3. Resource Uses

Impacts (generally adverse) to the greater sage-grouse values in the expanded area are the same as

those described in the Special Status Species – Wildlife section.

Much of the expanded area contains high-value wind-energy potential. While Alternative A

places some management limitations on the development of industrial wind energy, it is likely

that wind energy would be developed in large reaches of the area, which would result in severe

adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse from loss of habitat unless precluded by the State of

Wyoming through the Industrial Siting Board. Wind-energy development and ROWs require

substantial surface disturbance, and the high profile nature of the turbines, including movement

and noise, would likely be very disruptive to greater sage-grouse and cause the birds to avoid

the development area. The presence of nearby high profile structures can adversely impact male

attendance and breeding success at leks. Industrial wind-energy development would likely result

in irretrievable adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse, a fact the USFWS recognized in its recent

determination that wind-energy development – including site testing – is incompatible with

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1235

greater sage-grouse in the Core Area (USFWS 2010). Adverse impacts from ROW management

under Alternative A could be moderated by the Wyoming Industrial Siting Board-imposed limits

on industrial wind-energy development in the Core Area, but not all development requires the

Board's approval.

4.7.5.3.16.4.4. Special Designations

Management under Alternative A would result in the same impacts to the expanded ACEC area

described in the Special Status Species – Wildlife section under Special Designations. There

would be beneficial impacts to Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC

values where other special designations, such as the NHT ACEC, limit surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities.

4.7.5.3.16.5. Alternative B

4.7.5.3.16.5.1. Program Management

Alternative B would designate the expanded area (1,246,791 acres) as an ACEC. In addition,

Alternative B management generally protects resources, even at the expense of resource uses. The

impacts to greater sage-grouse from management of resources and resource uses are generally

described in the Special Status Species – Wildlife section.

4.7.5.3.16.5.2. Resources

Alternative B manages the ACEC to have fuels reduction treatments performed at appropriate

times of the year so as to improve the grass and forb understory on which greater sage-grouse rely

while minimizing long-term impacts to the sagebrush community. The additional acres likely to

be treated under Alternative B would result in a more beneficial impact to greater sage-grouse

habitat than the reduced acres in Alternative A.

Visual resources are more protected under Alternative B than Alternative A because Alternative

B manages all of the ACEC (the expanded area) as VRM Class II, which would limit new

development and other surface-disturbing activities that would adversely impact greater

sage-grouse habitat. Because VRM under Alternative A allows much more surface disturbance,

Alternative B would result in a substantial benefit to greater sage-grouse. However, this benefit

cannot be quantified in the absence of a site-specific analysis.

4.7.5.3.16.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B locatable, leasable, and mineral materials management would be much more

protective of ACEC values than Alternative A since Alternative B would pursue withdrawal from

locatable mineral entry and closes the area to mineral leasing. See the Special Status Species –

Wildlife section for an analysis of how these uses would adversely impact greater sage-grouse

habitat. The ACEC has high potential for uranium and bentonite and some potential for gold.

Exploration and development of these locatable minerals include intensive development that

would result in the long-term loss, if not the permanent loss, of greater sage-grouse habitat.

While areas having high bentonite potential generally do not support suitable greater sage-grouse

habitat, strip mining of bentonite would fragment habitat that is suitable, particularly in the area

where four-season habitat has been identified. The ACEC has moderate potential for leasable

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1236 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

minerals, including oil and gas and phosphate. Alternative B closes the ACEC to mineral leasing,

which would result in a greater beneficial impact to greater sage-grouse than Alternative A, which

opens the ACEC subject to standard stipulations.

Alternative B management of wind-energy development and major ROWs and corridors would be

substantially more beneficial to ACEC values than Alternative A because Alternative B closes

the area to such actions. Approximately 254,839 acres of the ACEC have high potential for

wind-energy development.

Alternative B livestock grazing management would result in fewer adverse impacts to ACEC

values than Alternative A management. This difference is analyzed in the Special Status Species

– Wildlife section. Over the twenty year life of the plan, the difference in acres treated to improve

habitat would result in more beneficial impacts than emphasizing infrastructure development.

Alternative B travel management would be more beneficial to ACEC values than Alternative A

because Alternative B limits travel in the expanded area to designated roads and trails. Alternative

B also limits mechanized travel to designated roads and trails, which would limit adverse impacts

from wildlife encounters with humans in new roadless areas.

4.7.5.3.16.5.4. Special Designations

The ACEC for the benefit of greater sage-grouse contains within it several ACECs or portions

of ACECs including NHT ACEC, South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC, Lander Slope, Red

Canyon, Beaver Rim, and Green Mountain. The impacts of these underlying ACECs would be

similar to the management in the expanded area ACEC management. These ACEC designations

would beneficially impact greater sage-grouse to the extent that surface disturbance in or near

habitat is limited. These limits on surface disturbance would be applied in the expanded Green

Mountain ACEC, the northern most extension of the Beaver Rim ACEC, the eastern portion of

the Congressional Trails ACEC and the expanded South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC. Other

than designation as an ACEC, Alternative B does not include special designation management

that would impact ACEC values.

4.7.5.3.16.6. Alternative C

4.7.5.3.16.6.1. Program Management

Alternative C would not designate any portion of the Local Working Group area or the expanded

area as an ACEC. The Alternative C emphasis on resource uses over physical and biological

resources would result in more adverse impacts to ACEC values. Alternative C management

in the expanded area is consistent with management described in the Special Status Species –

Wildlife section, and impacts would be the same. As with Alternative A, Alternative C would

likely result in the continued downward trend of greater sage-grouse.

4.7.5.3.16.6.2. Resources

As with Alternative A, impacts to greater sage-grouse by resource management actions are

described in the Special Status Species – Wildlife section. Alternative C management would

have generally the same impacts as under Alternative A except to a greater extent because

more surface disturbance would be authorized. Alternative C would have the same amount

of vegetation treatment as Alternative A with the same limited beneficial impacts to greater

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1237

sage-grouse in comparison to Alternative B. Alternative C VRM would be more likely to

adversely impact ACEC values than under Alternative B because more surface disturbance and

vertical construction, such as fences and power poles (with resulting adverse impacts to ACEC

values) would be allowed under Alternative C than under Alternative B.

4.7.5.3.16.6.3. Resource Uses

Adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse from resource uses are analyzed in the Special Status

Species – Wildlife section. These impacts would generally somewhat more adverse under

Alternative C than Alternative A, and far more adverse than under Alternative B, primarily

because of special designation management and limits on surface disturbance under Alternative

B. The ACEC has locatable minerals (uranium, bentonite, and some gold), leasable phosphate and

extensive mineral materials.

Alternative C management of major ROWs, including wind-energy development, transmission

lines would result in substantially more adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse resource that

Alternative B. Except for the special designation management identified below, the impacts

of major ROWs would be similar to Alternative A but somewhat greater because uses are

anticipated to be higher.

Alternative C would allow major ROWs in the expanded area. There is demand in the area

for ROWs due to existing and anticipated mineral activities, and industrial wind-energy

development and associated transmission lines (also high-profile structures). With no barriers

to north south transmission lines (see below under Special Designations), high potential areas

such as in the Rattlesnake Mountains and Gas Hills, would be far more likely to be developed,

with transmission lines running south through the expanded area. The potential adverse impact

to greater sage-grouse would be limited by State of Wyoming Industrial Siting Board rules, but

those rules are not applied to non-Core Area.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts than

Alternative B and similar adverse impacts as Alternative A, except to a greater degree as impacts

from more intensive grazing and less controlled range improvement projects would be greater.

See the Special Status Species – Wildlife section. Increased infrastructure concentrates livestock,

adversely impacting vegetation, and fences can fragment habitat and migration corridors. Fences

result in adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse because they are both a hazard to flight and a

potential perch for predators.

The impacts of travel management under Alternative C would be the same as under Alternative A

and less beneficial than under Alternative B.

4.7.5.3.16.6.4. Special Designations

There would be no special designation management of the ACEC under Alternative C and adverse

impacts to greater sage-grouse would occur in the expanded area. The degree of adverse impact

would depend on what activities would be authorized by the State of Wyoming in issuing mine

permits for locatable mineral activities in the Core Area and the approval of the Wyoming DEQ

Industrial Siting Board in the Core Area. With only minor exceptions, all of the expanded area

is located within the Core Area. ROWs, including transmission lines, would be authorized and

not excluded as under Alternative B or avoided in certain areas as under Alternative A where

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1238 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

other ACECs underlying the expanded would limit ROWs. See Alternative B's identification

of these other protections.

4.7.5.3.16.7. Alternative D

4.7.5.3.16.7.1. Program Management

Alternative D would designate 35,102 acres in the area identified by the Local Sage-Grouse

Working Group as the Twin Creek ACEC (a small portion of the area designated as the

Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC under Alternative B) to protect

important wildlife resources including greater sage-grouse. The Twin Creek ACEC would be

managed as NSO for oil and gas leasing, closed to solid mineral leasing, closed to mineral

materials disposals, closed to geophysical operations, withdrawn from locatable mineral entry,

and avoided for major and minor ROWs.

In addition to the protections afforded by the Twin Creek ACEC, the area identified by the

Local Sage-Grouse Working Group would be protected through management of the Lander

Slope, Red Canyon, and South Pass Historical Landscape ACECs. The area includes many

important resource values including greater sage-grouse and other wildlife (the area contains

important habitat, including winter habitat and crucial winter habitat for all of the big game

species present in the planning area) and historic and visual resources. Generally, this area is

collectively referred to as the Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area. This area is withdrawn

from locatable mineral entry and managed as NSO for oil and gas, avoided in part and excluded

in part from ROWs, and closed to solid mineral leasing. Although less protective than the

management under Alternative B, the management is more protective of important values in the

area, including greater sage-grouse. Alternative D applies Required Design Features to reduce

the adverse impacts to area resources from surface disturbance.

Given the importance of the area to greater sage-grouse and other values, the following analysis

describes impacts to values of concern beyond the geographical boundary of the Twin Creek

ACEC. The area of analysis encompasses the entire Hudson to Atlantic City area (so named

because the Hudson to Atlantic City Road makes a large loop through the area) which includes

the Twin Creek ACEC. When the larger protected area including Red Canyon and South Pass

is referred to, it is called the Lander Front-Hudson-Atlantic City area, which includes all of the

South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC. The analysis identifies the special management for only

the greater sage-grouse component of management because greater sage-grouse were identified as

the relevant and important values in the ACEC originally nominated by WGFD.

The impact of Alternative D general (resource and resource use) management to greater

sage-grouse is analyzed in detail in the Special Status Species – Wildlife section.

4.7.5.3.16.7.2. Resources

Alternative D would manage physical and biological resources in the Hudson-Atlantic City area

more similar to Alternative A than Alternative B. Therefore, beneficial impacts to ACEC values

would be more like impacts under Alternative A. Alternative D general wildlife management

includes more protections for greater sage-grouse and would result in more beneficial impacts to

greater sage-grouse than alternatives A and C, although somewhat less than Alternative B (see the

Special Status Species – Wildlife section). Alternative D would result in fewer beneficial impacts

to greater sage-grouse than Alternative B because Alternative D allows more surface disturbance.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1239

However, Alternative D lek protections and seasonal nesting protections would result in the same

beneficial impacts as Alternative B.

Although no additional roads are contemplated under any alternative, Alternative D management

of the Hudson-Atlantic City area would result in beneficial impacts to area values similar to

Alternative B because Alternative D allows much less surface disturbance than alternatives A and

C. Part of the beneficial impacts of reduced surface disturbance would arise from protection of the

vegetation (which can take decades to reclaim to predisturbance condition) as well as from the

reduced likelihood of INNS spread that accompanies surface disturbance.

Alternative D VRM would include some lands in the area managed as VRM III; therefore,

more surface-disturbing and disruptive activities could be authorized than under Alternative

B. However, beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse values would likely be the same under

these two alternatives because of the area’s minerals and realty management discussed below

and because of the Required Design Features.

4.7.5.3.16.7.3. Resource Uses

Locatable and leasable minerals management under Alternative D would result in more adverse

impacts to ACEC values than Alternative B, but less than alternatives A and C. Alternative D

applies an NSO restriction to oil and gas, which would result in similar beneficial impacts to

greater sage-grouse as Alternative B, but would be applied to many fewer acres. Because there

is some moderate to low potential for oil and gas in the area, management under Alternative D

would result in fewer adverse impacts than Alternative A or C. Alternative D also closes the

area to solid mineral leasing, geophysical exploration, and mineral materials disposals. This

management would beneficially impact greater sage-grouse, particularly in the portions of the

area that have phosphate potential. This management is the same as Alternative B, and would

result in far more beneficial impacts than Alternative A or Alternative C.

Alternative D withdraws the Hudson-Atlantic City area, including the entire Twin Creek ACEC,

from locatable mineral activities but not the balance of the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater

Sage-Grouse ACEC designated under Alternative B. However, the withdrawal would apply to

the area with high to moderate bentonite potential. The area also contains a withdrawal for

local, nonmotorized recreational use at Johnny Behind the Rocks, which would result in further

beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse that utilize the area.

The portion of the expanded area designated as an ACEC under Alternative B that is outside the

withdrawal area would be managed according to Core Area management under Alternative D.

Ninety-nine percent of the lands in the WGFD-nominated area in Alternative B that are outside

the withdrawal area are located within Core Area. Although Core Area management would

result in somewhat fewer beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse than under Alternative B, it

would be much more beneficial than management under alternatives A and C and would result in

beneficial impacts from Required Design Features. However, potential adverse impacts to greater

sage-grouse in areas with high to moderate potential for uranium development outside withdrawal

areas would be the same under Alternative D as under alternatives A and C, because Alternative

D does not restrict uranium development or subject uranium development to caps on surface

disturbance as it does for oil and gas and wind-energy development.

The BLM would manage the Hudson to Atlantic City area as an avoidance area for major and

minor ROWs, which would result in beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse resources similar

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
1240 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

to those under Alternative B. In the balance of the greater sage-grouse ACEC, Alternative D

management for the protection of Congressionally Designated Trails would result in substantial

beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse by limiting surface disturbance in the NTMC. Although

Alternative D would result in somewhat more adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse than

Alternative B, it would result in greater beneficial impacts than Alternative A or Alternative C.

Impacts from livestock grazing management under Alternative D are described in the Special

Status Species – Wildlife section and do not vary by any special management. Generally, these

would be beneficial in comparison to alternatives A and C but less beneficial than Alternative

B. Even if undertaken pursuant to a grazing management strategy, range infrastructure can have

adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse. Increased infrastructure concentrates livestock, adversely

impacts vegetation, and fragments habitat and migration corridors. Fences can be a considerable

adverse impact to greater sage-grouse because they are both a hazard to flight and a potential

perch for predators.

Alternative D travel management would result in impacts the same as alternatives A and C, and

less beneficial than Alternative B.

4.7.5.3.16.7.4. Special Designations

The Hudson-Atlantic City withdrawal area, which encompasses the Twin Creek ACEC, includes

special management that would beneficially impact greater sage-grouse values. Its southern

boundary is the Sweetwater River, so it includes a portion of the Sweetwater WSA (which is

common to all alternatives) and the 1⁄4-mile buffer for the portion of the Sweetwater River

through the Sweetwater Canyon managed as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS. In addition,

the South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC, all of the Beaver Rim ACEC, and the Beaver Rim

MLP offer additional protections.

4.8. Socioeconomic Resources

4.8.1. Social Conditions

This section addresses the potential for the alternatives to impact social conditions in the planning

area, including direct, indirect, short-term, and long-term impacts. Appendix A (p. 1427) identifies

laws, regulations, policies, and guidance considered in the analysis of social conditions.

Potential impacts to social conditions include changes in population, such as fluctuations caused

by economic boom-and-bust cycles; changes in the demand for housing and community services,

along with community fiscal conditions, which can impact the ability of state, regional, and

local governments to supply community services such as education; and changes in community

character, culture, and social trends. The BLM does not directly manage social conditions in

the planning area. However, BLM management actions have the potential to indirectly impact

social conditions. For example, a decision to prohibit future oil and gas exploration or leasing on

BLM-administered mineral estate could adversely impact job opportunities in the planning area,

which may lead to reductions in populations in parts of the planning area as residents move away

to find job opportunities elsewhere (or as fewer people move to the planning area for jobs).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Socioeconomic Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1241

4.8.1.1. Summary of Impacts

Under Alternative B, activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate related to oil and

gas, livestock grazing, and recreation would support an average of 2,621 full-time and part-time

jobs per year, which represents approximately 2.1 percent of total employment in the planning

area as of 2007 (Table 4.48, “Average Annual Impacts on Employment, by Sector and Alternative

for the Planning Area” (p. 1258)). Compared to Alternative A, which essentially represents the

continuation of current trends, this represents a decrease of 1,000 jobs (approximate 28 percent

decrease), or approximately 0.8 percent of employment using 2007 employment statistics. These

job losses would relate to restrictions on development of oil and gas resources and restrictions on

grazing. Alternative B would result in more jobs related to recreation. It is possible that more

oil and gas wells would be drilled on nearby state or private land, partially compensating for

the projected employment decrease.

Table 4.45, “Overall Impacts to Social Conditions by Alternative” (p. 1241) summarizes

impacts to social conditions as discussed in this section for alternatives B, C, and D compared

to Alternative A. Although the table endeavors to summarize impacts and characterize them as

low, medium, or high, it does not classify the impacts as beneficial or adverse. Some interest

groups could view social impacts as beneficial; some interest groups could view impacts as

adverse. For example, increased emphasis on resource conservation under Alternative B would

result in a change from the current balance of uses, which wilderness advocates would likely

view as a beneficial impact, but oil and gas development interests would view as adverse.

In Table 4.45, “Overall Impacts to Social Conditions by Alternative” (p. 1241), high impacts

are those that would result in substantial changes to an existing condition in a way that affects

a large number of people and/or endures for a long period. Low impacts are those a limited

number of people would experience for a limited time. Medium impacts are intermediate and

would fall between high and low.

Table 4.45. Overall Impacts to Social Conditions by Alternative

Impact Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Impact on Population Low Impact Medium Impact

(potential reductions

focused in oil/gas

service areas, which

generally correspond

to population centers)

Low Impact Low Impact

Impact on Housing

and Community

Services

Low Impact Medium Impact (due

to potential population

reductions)

Low Impact Low Impact

Impacts on Quality of

Life and Local Culture

Low Impact Low Impact (change

from recent trends

will constitute greater

emphasis on resource

conservation)

Low Impact (change

from recent trends

will constitute greater

emphasis on resource

development)

Low Impact

(emphasis on

balanced use

continues)

Source: Based on the analysis of impacts to social conditions, as described in the text.

N/A Not applicable

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Social Conditions
1242 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.8.1.2. Methods and Assumptions

The BLM used the Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) model to estimate socioeconomic

impacts from BLM management actions under the alternatives. IMPLAN is a regional economic

model that provides a mathematical accounting of the flow of money, goods, and services through

a region’s economy. The model estimate how a specific economic activity translates into jobs and

income for the region. It includes the “ripple effect” (or “multiplier effect”) of changes in sectors

that management actions might not direct impact, but are linked to industries management actions

directly impact. In IMPLAN, these ripple effects are called indirect impacts (for changes in

industries that sell inputs to the directly affected industries) and induced impacts (for changes in

household spending as household income increases or decreases due to the changes in production).

For example, an increase in oil and gas production implies more money would be spent on the

maintenance of existing oil and gas equipment and/or new oil and gas equipment; in turn, this

implies more money would be spent in sectors that provide inputs to oil and gas support services

or in equipment sectors. These production and consumption, or “input-output,” relationships

allow IMPLAN to estimate indirect and induced impacts based on changes in production that

could result under an alternative. Appendix L (p. 1583) provides technical assumptions and

additional information about the IMPLAN model.

Analysts compared potential impacts to social conditions associated with each of the alternatives

to existing conditions and trends in the planning area to establish a context for impacts. Analysts

broadly categorized social impacts as follows: impacts to population; impacts to housing and

community services; and impacts to custom, culture, and social trends.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Economic conditions, especially jobs, labor earnings, and economic output, will continue to

influence population growth or decline in the planning area (although this is not the only

driver; non-labor income is also important, as noted in the Economic Conditions section).

● Any population change that can reasonably be associated with the alternatives will likely be

due to changes in employment opportunities.

● Federal, state, and local taxes will continue to be collected on minerals produced in the

planning area.

● The pace and timing of economic development in the planning area will continue to depend

on many factors beyond BLM management actions. Because the pace of development in the

planning area is largely driven by external forces such as worldwide economic trends and

technological changes, it is difficult to predict. Therefore, the economic impact analysis

– which influences the social impact analysis because of the link between employment

opportunities and population – assumes a relatively constant rate of development. Therefore,

actual social and economic impacts could differ if the rate of development changes.

4.8.1.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

The analysis of alternatives focuses on the impacts of BLM actions. It is important to note

that many other events outside of BLM control could alter economic and social trends. For

example, oil and gas prices might change as a result of an expansion or contraction of world or

national economic activity, and this, in turn, could affect the pace or amount of development.

Similarly, state and local laws regulating the subdivision of land could alter land ownership and

development patterns, which may in turn affect open space and physical landscapes. Where

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Social Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1243

the analysis finds that BLM actions would result in minimal or no change in social conditions,

it does not necessarily mean that no change would occur; other forces influence changes in

complex economic and social trends.

4.8.1.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Humans and associated social and economic conditions are an integral part of ecosystem and

community function in the planning area. Lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs, values, social structure,

culture, and population characteristics affect and are affected by management actions such as

those made by the BLM in the planning area. In addition, both planning area lands and BLM

management of these lands have emotional meanings for many people. Varying viewpoints on

economic development and conservation of natural resources are expected to cause controversy

related to management of BLM-administered land and federal mineral estate.

Any population change that could reasonably be associated with the alternatives would likely

be due to changes in employment opportunities. Employment opportunities related to activities

on BLM-administered land and mineral estate include jobs in exploration, development, and

production of minerals, including oil and gas, solid leasable minerals, and locatable and salable

minerals; jobs in livestock production; and jobs in various recreation activities. The economic

analysis provides quantitative estimates of employment in the planning area from oil and gas

exploration and development, grazing, and recreation activities on BLM-administered lands and

mineral estate. Analysts used these quantitative estimates to analyze the impacts of management

on population.

The values associated with BLM-administered lands are comprised of market values and

non-market values. Market values are those related to goods and services typically bought and

sold in markets. For example, commodities such as oil, gas, bentonite, crops, and livestock

products, and services such as outfitter trips and fishing guides, are traded in markets. The

production and sale of these goods and services results in jobs and income, and the value of these

goods to society can be readily expressed in monetary terms. Non-market values relate to things

that people value, but are not generally bought or sold in a marketplace. For example, many

people value the ability to see a mountain range from a certain vista point, without human-caused

haze in the air. Some people value open vistas that lack structures, fences, wind turbines, or other

signs of human development. Some people place a high value on their ability to hunt or fish

on public lands, and the satisfaction they derive from this ability might exceed the equivalent

monetary cost of purchasing the same amount of food from the grocery store or the amount of

money they spend on gear. Other people value the knowledge that their great-great-grandchildren,

should they choose to reside in Wyoming, would enjoy clean air, open vistas, and the ability to

fish and hunt. The common feature of these values is that they are generally not bought and sold

like tangible goods and services, and for that reason are difficult to assign a monetary value. Other

examples of non-market values include the satisfaction people derive from resources such as

clean water, threatened and endangered species, or cultural resources, or even the satisfaction they

derive from the knowledge that BLM uses a particular fire management or INNS control regime.

Some of the value associated with open space and other features is captured in markets. For

example, the price of a house that overlooks a pristine mountain range might be higher than the

price of a house identical in almost every respect but overlooks a cement factory. However,

the ability to see an open landscape while driving along a highway is not likely to be captured

in the market. A related concept is that some changes in management could affect both market

and non-market values. For example, industrial development that substantially alters the visual

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Social Conditions
1244 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

characteristics of the landscape might, over time, result in fewer tourists visiting the area from

afar and spending money in local hotels, restaurants, and shops. This decline in tourism would

result in adverse impacts to employment and income. Such industrial development also could

reduce the satisfaction of local residents who value open space, and therefore would result in

adverse impacts to non-market values. Conversely, new industrial development also would

generate jobs and income, and the net effect – if all values were to be expressed in the same

metric (dollars), could be positive or negative.

Although economists have developed approaches to assign a monetary value to things that are not

traded in the marketplace, the approaches for doing so are often complex, controversial (due to

the subjective native of assigning a dollar value to something that is neither bought nor sold),

and require considerable resources and time to properly analyze and interpret. For example,

stated-preference methods (surveys) are a common approach for placing a monetary value on

clean air and open views. A survey might present people with images of a mountain vista with

different degrees of haze superimposed, and ask people to express how much they would be

willing to pay for the ability to see the vista with lower levels of haze for a certain number of

days per year. However, research has shown that the survey design, sample size, and outreach

methods can have a dramatic influence on the results. Furthermore, surveys are most effective

when they focus on a single, specific type of non-market value and effects thereto (e.g., regional

haze that affects visibility of a vista) rather than an agglomeration of effects (e.g., regional

haze, industrial development on a landscape, clean water, preservation of cultural resources,

preservation of wilderness, etc.). Due to the complexity and cost of implementing non-market

valuation methods, quantifying these values is beyond the scope of this analysis. However, the

BLM recognizes that changes in non-market values would be likely, and the severity of impacts

would depend on the level of resource protection and development under each alternative. The

development of oil and gas resources and other minerals, and development of ROWs, renewable

energy facilities, and other structures, would likely result in adverse impacts to non-market values

under all alternatives. Furthermore, alternatives that emphasize resource development over

conservation likely would result in more impacts to non-market values.

Because of the close relationship between non-market economic values and how individuals in

the planning area perceive their own quality of life, impacts to non-market values are discussed –

qualitatively – under Quality of Life and Local Culture. Related to quality of life, it is important

to note that a relatively large share of personal income in the planning area – especially in

Fremont County (38 percent) and Hot Springs County (42 percent) – is from non-labor income.

This means that a large proportion of the population in the planning area receives income from

investments and dividends, and government transfer payments such as those from Social Security.

To the degree that the local economy in these counties relies on non-labor income, and that

people choose to retire to the area based on the quality of life available, overall quality of life –

incorporating factors such as environmental amenities, cost of living, and cultural values – could

result in a substantial impact to the continued economic viability and resilience of the counties.

With mounting economic pressures on the livestock sector, some ranch owners have raised money

for retirement or other purposes by subdividing portions of their land into “ranchettes” and selling

them to individuals. The sale of these ranchettes provides financial liquidity to ranchers who

frequently have most of their assets in land, but generally results in increased building of fences,

houses, and sometimes other structures (e.g., barns), changing the visual landscape. Under all

alternatives, this trend would be likely to continue, because it is fundamentally related to (1) the

nature of the ranching business (principally, the fact that most ranchers’ assets are in land, and

the fact that profit margins are generally low and can turn negative in drought or other adverse

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Social Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1245

conditions) and (2) state laws that govern property subdivision, under which county zoning laws

cannot regulate subdivisions of 35 acres and larger. However, alternatives that would adversely

impact the profitability of ranching could serve to increase this trend. Because the subdivision

of ranch land affects local culture and quality of life, impacts to this trend are discussed under

Quality of Life and Local Culture.

The economic and social analysis incorporates variations in pace of development over time.

However, under all alternatives, the pace of development could differ from the rate assumed

in the analysis. The BLM has limited control over the pace of development because it only

authorizes economic activities such as oil and gas drilling, and does not perform these activities.

An abrupt shift in the pace of development could result in short-term impacts (beneficial or

adverse) to the demand for housing and community services, and to the supply of tax revenues

from residences or businesses to support community services, due to short-term changes in job

opportunities and the resulting change in in-migration or out-migration trends. Any such impacts

would likely be more severe for smaller communities, which are less likely to be able to absorb a

sudden influx of new residents, or to continue to support existing infrastructure if out-migration

were to increase suddenly.

Under all alternatives, the BLM continues to consider socioeconomic impacts of site-specific

actions and incorporates socioeconomic issues into analyses of environmental, social, and

economic impacts, such as the NEPA-required analyses for site-specific actions.

4.8.1.3.2. Alternative A

Impacts to Population

As noted under Impacts Common to All Alternatives, changes in employment opportunities

could result in changes to population and demographics. Under Alternative A, activities on

BLM-administered land and mineral estate related to oil and gas, livestock grazing, and recreation

would support an average of 3,622 full-time and part-time jobs per year (Table 4.48, “Average

Annual Impacts on Employment, by Sector and Alternative for the Planning Area” (p. 1258)),

which represents approximately 2.9 percent of total employment in the planning area counties

using 2007 employment statistics. The total number of supported jobs in oil and gas, livestock

grazing, and recreation under Alternative A would be approximately 28 percent higher than under

Alternative B, 5 percent higher than Alternative D, and approximately equal to Alternative C. It

is important to note that this does not constitute an increase of 3,622 jobs per year over current

employment; it more closely represents an estimate of the contribution of certain activities on

BLM-administered lands and mineral estate to overall employment in the planning area.

As shown in the analysis of impacts to economic conditions, approximately 90 percent of the job

opportunities from activities analyzed using the IMPLAN model would be related to oil and gas

development and production (3,309 jobs). Livestock grazing would contribute approximately

5 percent of the job opportunities (180 jobs), and recreation would contribute the remainder

(133 jobs). These jobs would be geographically dispersed across the planning area, because all

three sectors operate across the planning area. BLM-administered lands provide recreational

opportunities over the entire planning area, there are active oil and gas wells throughout the

planning area, and livestock grazing is authorized on BLM-administered lands throughout the

planning area. The average annual number of jobs supported by recreation activities would be

lower under Alternative A than Alternative B; however, oil and gas development and production

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Social Conditions
1246 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

would support approximately 30 percent more average annual jobs than Alternative B, and

livestock grazing would support approximately 23 percent more jobs.

Job opportunities (and resulting increases or shifts in population) would likely concentrate in

population centers such as Lander and Riverton, and especially in oil and gas service centers such

as Casper, Rock Springs, and Green River. Management under Alternative A might not result in

noticeable impacts to the current distribution of job opportunities in the planning area for several

reasons. First, Alternative A maintains current management. Second, the current contribution of

economic activity on BLM-administered lands accounts for a relatively small proportion of jobs

in the planning area (2.9 percent, according to the IMPLAN analysis of oil and gas, livestock

grazing, and recreation under Alternative A). Lastly, the IMPLAN analysis considers jobs in all

sectors – including industries directly affected by BLM actions (e.g., mining) and those indirectly

affected (e.g., retail jobs created by expenditures of workers in various industries). As a result,

Alternative A would not alter the overall trend of BLM-authorized activities and associated

population changes in the planning area.

Impacts to Housing and Community Development

Changes in population have the potential to change the demand for housing and community

services such as roads, schools, and police and fire protection. As described in Chapter 3,

county-wide vacancy rates in 2000 (the latest year for which data are available) were 26 percent

in Carbon County, 13 percent in Fremont County, 17 percent in Hot Springs County, 10

percent in Natrona County, and 11 percent in Sweetwater County. These percentages represent

approximately 2,200 vacant units in Carbon, 2,000 vacant units in Fremont, 400 in Hot Springs,

3,000 in Natrona, and 1,800 in Sweetwater counties. Vacancy rates for rental properties in the

planning area have declined since 2001-2002. However, because Alternative A would not change

the direction of current BLM management, it would not be expected to result in changes to either

the total demand for housing and community services or its geographic distribution.

As noted under Impacts Common to All Alternatives, if development occurs slower or faster

than the relatively steady pace assumed in the analysis, there could be short-term impacts to

demand for housing and community services, and to the supply of tax revenues from residences

or businesses to support community services. It would likely be more difficult for smaller

communities to absorb sudden changes of this nature. If national and international energy prices,

operator business strategies, or other factors lead to a rapid pace of development, there could

be sudden short-term increases in demand for community services as a result of new jobs and

increased population. However, local and state tax revenues collected from energy production

could help mitigate short-term increases in demand for services, because tax revenues help pay

for community services.

Impacts to Quality of Life and Local Culture

Historically, the communities in the planning area developed around a combination of

resource-based industries, ranching, trade and commerce, and providing supplies and services

to tourists. Quality of life for the people who live in the planning area depends on continued

economic opportunities and features of the natural landscape. Alternative A will maintain

existing BLM policies in their present state. Historically, these policies have contributed, along

with other government policies and the actions of private firms and residents, to economic

viability and resilience in the planning area. Alternative A would not preclude other forces

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Social Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1247

(beyond BLM-authorized actions) from driving any changes to the economic, physical, and

social conditions in the planning area.

Although there are groups with particular interests regarding specific land uses (e.g., wilderness

advocates, oil and gas interests, and ranchers), overall, the residents of the planning area tend

to support both conservation of natural resources and the economic viability of resource-based

industries. For this reason, residents generally support multiple use of BLM-administered lands,

including the development of mineral and energy resources, livestock grazing authorizations,

continued access to BLM-administered lands for recreation, and conservation of wildlife and

native vegetation. Alternative A would continue current BLM management for multiple uses

without a particular emphasis on conservation (as there would be under Alternative B) or resource

use and development (as there would be under Alternative C).

Under Alternative A, continued development of oil and gas wells, ROWs, and other human-made

structures on the landscape would continue to result in decreases in non-market values associated

with open space and wilderness. Because the alternative essentially represents continuation of

current management actions, these decreases would likely be consistent with historic trends.

Under this alternative, subdivision of ranch land and related development and sale of ranchette

parcels would continue, again generally consistent with historic trends.

As indicated under Impacts Common to All Alternatives, under this alternative, as under all the

alternatives, the BLM would continue to incorporate socioeconomic considerations into the

planning process and perform socioeconomic analyses as required for site-specific actions.

4.8.1.3.3. Alternative B

Impacts to Population

Under Alternative B, activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate related to oil and

gas, livestock grazing, and recreation would support an average of 2,621 full-time and part-time

jobs per year, which represents approximately 2.1 percent of total employment in the planning

area as of 2007 (Table 4.48, “Average Annual Impacts on Employment, by Sector and Alternative

for the Planning Area” (p. 1258)). Compared to Alternative A, which essentially represents the

continuation of current trends, this represents a decrease of 1,000 jobs (approximate 28 percent

decrease), or approximately 0.8 percent of employment using 2007 employment statistics. These

job losses would relate to restrictions on development of oil and gas resources and restrictions on

grazing; Alternative B would generate more jobs related to recreation. It is possible that more

oil and gas wells would be drilled on nearby state or private land, partially compensating for

the projected employment decrease.

A decrease in employment opportunities could result in a decrease in population in the planning

area because people might leave the area to seek employment elsewhere. The expected magnitude

of any such decrease would be similar to the magnitude of employment loss. However, the

anticipated loss in population would likely be lower because some people (e.g., retired people) do

not depend directly on employment for their economic well being. In addition, an action that

results in decreased employment opportunities and improved environmental quality could result

in more retirees or other people moving to the area, or remaining there for longer. Because these

people support themselves on unearned income and do not depend directly on employment for

their economic survival, a policy designed to enhance environmental quality may lead to more of

these people moving in or less moving out. In other words, if 0.8 percent of employed people

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Social Conditions
1248 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and their families left the planning area, it could be argued that the population would likely

decrease by less than 0.8 percent because there would be some offset to the indirect and induced

employment impact of this alternative attributable to those residents attracted to the planning

area who are retired or otherwise non-working.

As noted in the Economic Conditions section, approximately 88 percent of the job opportunities

from activities analyzed using the IMPLAN model would be related to oil and gas development

and production under Alternative B (2,305 jobs). Livestock grazing would contribute

approximately 5 percent of the job opportunities (139 jobs), and recreation would contribute

another 7 percent (178 jobs). These jobs would be geographically dispersed across the planning

area, as under Alternative A. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would generate

approximately 33 percent more jobs in recreation, but 23 percent fewer jobs in livestock grazing

and 30 percent fewer jobs in oil and gas exploration and production.

Job opportunities and job losses (and resulting shifts in population) under Alternative B would

be concentrated primarily in population centers. Because most job losses under Alternative B

would be related to decreased oil and gas development, any population changes would focus on

areas that service oil and gas fields, such as Rock Springs and Casper. There are oil and gas fields

throughout the planning area, and overall, the distribution of any job losses would likely occur

throughout the planning area. In addition, the IMPLAN analysis considers jobs in all sectors

– including industries BLM actions directly affect (e.g., mining) and those that BLM actions

indirectly affect (e.g., retail jobs created by expenditures of workers in various industries). As a

result, Alternative B would not alter the overall trend of BLM-authorized activities and associated

population changes in the planning area.

Impacts to Housing and Community Services

Alternative B could result in decreased population compared to other alternatives, which could

result in decreased demand for housing and community services. However, using the same

argument presented in the Alternative A narrative, these impacts may be somewhat mitigated by

the emphasis on enhancing environmental quality. Alternative B also would result in a reduced

tax base for providing community services, as described in the Economic Conditions section.

The geographic distribution of these changes is difficult to predict because tax losses in specific

jurisdictions are driven by oil and gas well locations. There is oil and gas potential throughout the

planning area, and the RFD does not predict specific well locations (BLM 2009c).

Impacts to Quality of Life and Local Culture

As described for Alternative A, quality of life for the people who live in the planning area depends

on continued economic opportunities and features of the natural landscape. Alternative B would

reduce economic opportunities, but would also result in decreased air pollution and other adverse

environmental impacts associated with oil and gas development compared to alternatives A,

C, and D.

As noted for Alternative A, residents generally support multiple use of BLM-administered lands,

including the development of mineral and energy resources, livestock grazing authorizations,

continued access to BLM-administered lands for recreation, and conservation of wildlife

and native vegetation. Alternative B would continue the BLM current practice of allowing

multiple uses, but would prioritize resource conservation over resource uses such as oil and gas

development. This might be inconsistent with the culture advocated by some interest groups

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Social Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1249

(e.g., oil and gas interests) and could promote the culture advocated by others (e.g., wilderness

advocates).

Under this alternative, continued development of oil and gas wells, ROWs, and other human-made

structures on the landscape would continue to result in decreases in non-market values associated

with open space and wilderness. However, because this alternative emphasizes resource

conservation, the magnitude of these decreases would be less than historic trends and less than

under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, subdivision of ranch land and related development

and sale of ranchette parcels would continue. This continuation could be more intense than

historic trends because Alternative B would likely result in measurable impacts to allotments for

many operations that use federal land for forage.

4.8.1.3.4. Alternative C

Impacts to Population

Under Alternative C, activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate related to oil

and gas, livestock grazing, and recreation would support an average of 3,617 full-time and

part-time jobs per year (Table 4.48, “Average Annual Impacts on Employment, by Sector and

Alternative for the Planning Area” (p. 1258)), which represents approximately 2.9 percent of total

employment in the planning area using 2007 employment statistics. Compared to Alternative

A, which essentially represents the continuation of current trends, Alternative C would result in

approximately the same number of jobs (a decrease of five jobs). Alternative C would generate

slightly fewer jobs in livestock grazing and recreation, and slightly more jobs related to the

development of oil and gas resources.

As noted in the Economic Conditions section, approximately 92 percent of the job opportunities

from activities analyzed using the IMPLAN model would be related to oil and gas development

and production (3,324 jobs). Livestock grazing would contribute approximately 5 percent of the

job opportunities (170 jobs), and recreation would contribute the remainder (123 jobs). These

jobs would be geographically dispersed across the planning area, as described for Alternative A.

Compared to Alternative A, this alternative would result in essentially the same number of jobs,

based on the IMPLAN results. Likewise, compared to Alternative A, a change in population

would not be expected. Moreover, while the IMPLAN results suggest slight job declines in both

livestock grazing and recreation, and a minor increase in oil and gas, these changes would not

have a measurable impact on the population distribution compared to current conditions and

historic trends, for the same reasons described under Alternative A.

Impacts to Housing and Community Services

Alternative C would result in about the same population and, therefore, about the same demand

for housing and community services as Alternative A. Alternative C would result in essentially an

identical tax base for providing these services, as described in the Economic Conditions section.

Impacts to Quality of Life and Local Culture

Alternative C would result in about the same economic opportunities in the planning area as

Alternative A. However, because of the greater emphasis on resource use under Alternative C, it

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Social Conditions
1250 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

could result in additional adverse impacts to air quality, wildlife, and other resources that improve

quality of life related to natural characteristics.

Alternative C will continue BLM current practice of allowing multiple uses, but prioritizes the

use of resources such as oil and gas development over the conservation of resources such as

air quality and wildlife. This might be consistent with the culture advocated by some interest

groups (e.g., oil and gas interests) and inconsistent with the culture advocated by others (e.g.,

wilderness advocates).

Under this alternative, continued development of oil and gas wells, ROWs, and other human-made

structures on the landscape would continue to result in decreases in non-market values associated

with open space and wilderness. However, because this alternative emphasizes resource

development, the magnitude of these decreases would be greater than historic trends and greater

than impacts under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, subdivision of ranch land and related

development and sale of ranchette parcels would continue. This continuation would generally be

consistent with historic trends, because Alternative C would result in relatively little impact to

the economics of ranching.

4.8.1.3.5. Alternative D

Impacts to Population

Under Alternative D, activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate related to oil

and gas, livestock grazing, and recreation would support an average of 3,423 full-time and

part-time jobs per year (Table 4.48, “Average Annual Impacts on Employment, by Sector and

Alternative for the Planning Area” (p. 1258)), which represents approximately 2.8 percent of total

employment in the planning area using 2007 employment statistics. Compared to Alternative A,

which essentially represents the continuation of current trends, Alternative D would result in a

small decrease in the number of jobs. Alternative D would result in slightly fewer jobs in livestock

grazing and the development of oil and gas resources, and slightly more jobs related to recreation.

The decrease in employment opportunities, which amounts to 0.1 percent of current employment,

could result in a small decrease in population in the planning area as people leave the area in

search of work elsewhere. A decrease in employment opportunities could result in a decrease

in population in the planning area because people might leave the area to seek employment

elsewhere. The expected magnitude of any such decrease would be similar to the magnitude of

employment loss. However, the anticipated loss in population would likely be lower because

some people (e.g., retired people) do not depend directly on employment for their economic well

being. In addition, an action that results in decreased employment opportunities and improved

environmental quality could result in more retirees or other people moving to the area, or

remaining there for longer. Because these people support themselves on unearned income and do

not depend directly on employment for their economic survival, a policy designed to enhance

environmental quality may lead to more of these people moving in or less moving out. In other

words, if 0.1 percent of employed people and their families left the planning area, it could be

argued that the population would likely decrease by less than 0.1 percent because there would be

some offset to the indirect and induced employment impact of this alternative attributable to those

residents attracted to the planning area who are retired or otherwise non-working.

As noted in the Economic Conditions section, approximately 91 percent of the job opportunities

from activities analyzed using the IMPLAN model would be related to oil and gas development

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Social Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1251

and production (3,109 jobs). Livestock grazing would contribute approximately 5 percent of the

job opportunities (163 jobs), and recreation would contribute the remainder (152 jobs). These

jobs would be geographically dispersed across the planning area, similar to Alternative A.

Alternative D would result in a population similar to Alternative A, with relatively small changes

overall. Therefore, Alternative D would not substantially affect population distribution, increase,

or movement compared to current conditions and historic trends, for the reasons described under

Alternative A.

Impacts to Housing and Community Services

Alternative D would result in about the same population and, therefore, about the same demand

for housing and community services as Alternative A. Alternative D would result in a slightly

smaller tax base for providing these services, as described in the Economic Conditions section.

The geographic distribution of these changes is not possible to predict because higher tax revenues

in specific jurisdictions are driven by oil and gas well locations. There are oil and gas resources

throughout the planning area, and the RFD does not predict specific well locations (BLM 2009c).

Impacts to Quality of Life and Local Culture

Alternative D would result in about the same economic opportunities in the planning area as

Alternative A. However, it would also result in some beneficial impacts to air quality, wildlife,

and other resources that improve quality of life related to natural characteristics. The balanced

management approach under Alternative D could increase the quality of life in the long term and

increase the economic viability and sustainability of communities.

Alternative D balances the use of resources such as oil and gas reserves with the conservation

of resources such as air quality, open space, and wildlife habitat. The balanced use approach is

intended to support the culture advocated by some interest groups (e.g., oil and gas interests) and

interest groups (e.g., wilderness advocates). Alternative D provides for resource development and

associated job opportunities while managing for non-market values associated with open space

and natural characteristics.

Under this alternative, subdivision of ranch land and related development and sale of ranchette

parcels would continue. This continuation would generally be consistent with historic trends,

because Alternative D would result in relatively little impact to the economics of ranching.

4.8.2. Economic Conditions

This section addresses the potential for the alternatives to impact economic conditions in

the planning area, including direct, indirect, short-term, and long-term impacts. Appendix

A (p. 1427) identifies laws, Executive Orders, regulations, policies, and guidance considered in

the analysis of economic conditions.

Potential impacts to economic conditions include changes in regional economic output,

employment, and earnings, and in tax revenues for local, state, and federal governments. In terms

of economic modeling analysis, direct and indirect impacts are assumed to occur simultaneously,

although in reality these impacts could take time to work their way through the economic sectors

in the analysis area. For example, an action to permit gas exploration and production could result

in the direct infusion of money into several economic sectors, and indirect infusions into related

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Economic Conditions
1252 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

sectors such as retail, accommodation and food services, and education and other social services.

In economic modeling, these impacts are assumed to occur instantaneously. Moreover, continued

direct infusion of money into the planning area’s economy created by the decision to lease oil and

gas is analyzed over the life of the project, which in this case represents a multi-year period of

production. Therefore, the analysis is designed to account for the economic activity produced

by planning decisions over time. The impacts are estimated on an annual basis through 2027,

based on the estimated annual direct impact of the alternatives.

Although the transfer of money from directly and indirectly affected sectors is assumed to be

instantaneous (by the structure of the model), the model does incorporate gradual changes in the

economy based on the gradual development of the various resources under the alternatives. For

example, impacts to grazing allotments from surface-disturbing actions are expected to occur

gradually over 20 years, and the drilling of new oil and gas wells is expected to occur gradually

over a similar period. Appendix L (p. 1583) provides details about the time-phasing assumptions

for resource development, loss of AUMs for livestock grazing, and other changes.

The economic analysis is based on a set of assumptions that allow the BLM to compare the

economic consequences of each alternative. As stated in multiple places, these assumptions are

not predictions, ceilings, or caps as to what will occur in the future. Some of this is well known,

such as the amount of acres of disturbance needed to accommodate an oil rig to drill a well to a

specific depth. However, much is not known, such as which zones are targeted for development.

Some of the wells that have been drilled in the planning area exceed 22,000 feet in depth; such a

well requires a larger drill rig than a producing zone of less than 1,000 feet. The target zone will

dictate whether it can be directionally drilled, which in turn determines the amount of surface

disturbance associated with the well.

There are also things that the BLM cannot know at this time, such as technology changes that

would make areas known to contain hydrocarbons accessible. Fracking or CBNG extraction are

two such potential “game changers.” If the technology changes so extensively that the basis for

the analysis is undermined, new analysis can be necessary, particularly where the BLM identifies

areas requiring additional protections or limitations that would have been evaluated had the extent

of the development been properly understood. However, this “unknown” category should not be

overstated. Oil shale-tar sands are a good example. Throughout Colorado, extensive hydrocarbon

resources were known to exist but were not developed for decades because the technology did not

support their economic recovery. Once the technology advanced, accompanied by increases in

product price, recovery became possible. That technological advance, however, did not make

any difference to the vast majority of the planning area that does not contain oil share-tar sands.

Where mineral resources do not occur, improvements in technology will have no impact on

economic outcomes. This is why the analysis of the economic impacts of prescriptions on mineral

development are tempered by mineral potential.

The BLM has determined that there is value to the decision maker in comparing economic

outcomes of the alternatives using the same knowledge base with the same possibility of errors in

prediction. Because the BLM cannot have perfect knowledge, reasonably applying what we do

know uniformly achieves a comparison that allows the decision maker to understand how the

outcomes compare.

The BLM considered whether it was necessary to recalculate the economic and other

consequences in the changes in management between the analysis of Alternative D in the Draft

RMP and EIS and Alternative D in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. Oil and gas development is

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1253

the highest contributor to economic output and the highest emitter of air pollution of all authorized

activities (noting that the BLM did not analyze CH4 production of livestock cattle grazing) and

the sector that would lead to the most surface disturbance. The BLM compared the number of

wells that would likely occur under Alternative D in the Draft RMP and EIS and Alternative D in

the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. Based on the constraints applied under Alternative D, the BLM

determined that across the planning area over a 20-year period, it is likely that 50 fewer wells or

approximately 1.6 percent of the total wells analyzed under the Draft RMP and EIS would be

drilled. This difference was considered so small, particularly in consideration of the uncertainties

of the analysis, that further re-analysis was not required. The emissions, surface disturbance,

income, wages, and royalties are not calculated with sufficient precision for a 2.5-well-per-year

inaccuracy to be statistically significant. If this was true for the most important area of

development, then the changes in other areas of development would be even less important.

The BLM oil and gas calculations (and others) use a 20-year period for analysis. This is by no

means to suggest that the RMP will be in place for 20 years. It could be replaced before then

if situations change that cannot be addressed by amendment, or it could be in place longer, as

is the case with the 1987 RMP. The assumptions discussed above and throughout the analysis

require a set period to provide analysis parameters. There is limited utility in making assumptions

for actions farther out than 2 decades, given known data limits.

4.8.2.1. Summary of Impacts

Based on results from the IMPLAN model used to quantify economic activity measured by

sectoral output, earnings, and employment in conjunction with estimated tax revenues and a

qualitative analysis of activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate, the impacts

associated with alternatives A and C would be almost identical. Earnings, output, employment,

and tax revenues would be somewhat lower under Alternative D, and substantially lower under

Alternative B. Much of the difference is from projected oil and gas activity (highest under

alternatives A and C). Earnings, output, and employment from recreation would be highest

under Alternative B, second highest under Alternative D, and about the same under alternatives

A and C. Economic activity related to grazing would be highest under Alternative A, lowest

under Alternative B, and about the same under alternatives C and D, which are slightly lower

than Alternative A. Economic activity related to other sectors not modeled using IMPLAN,

including renewable energy, locatable minerals, and salable minerals, would be similar across

all the alternatives, at least in the first 5 to 10 years of the planning period. In the latter half

of the planning period, economic activity from renewable energy could be somewhat higher

under alternatives A and C compared to alternatives B and D; however, the overall amount of

activity is uncertain.

Table 4.46, “Comparison of Projected Earnings and Employment” (p. 1254) compares projected

earnings and employment related to activities on BLM-administered lands to the levels in 2007

for the five-county region. As the table shows, Alternative A would result in about $196 million

in earnings annually, and 3,622 jobs annually, from BLM-administered land and resources.

Alternative B would generate about $139 million in earnings and 2,621 jobs; Alternative C

would generate approximately $196 million in earnings and 3,617 jobs; and Alternative D would

generate about $184 million in earnings and 3,424 jobs. Therefore, alternatives A and C would

result in about the same amount of earnings and employment, and both would be somewhat higher

than under Alternative B and slightly higher than under Alternative D.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Economic Conditions
1254 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

It is useful to compare the differences in earnings and employment across alternatives not

only in absolute terms, but also to the size of the regional economy. The earnings associated

with Alternative A, compared to 2007 earnings for the planning area counties, represent about

one-fourtieth (2.5 percent) of the magnitude of those earnings. The average employment

associated with BLM-administered lands under Alternative A represents a little less than

one-thirty-fifth of employment in year 2007, or 2.9 percent. Earnings associated with

BLM-administered lands under alternatives B, C, and D, respectively, would constitute 1.8, 2.5,

and 2.4 percent of year 2007 earnings. Employment associated with BLM-administered lands

under alternatives B, C, and D constitute 2.1, 2.9, and 2.8 percent of employment in year 2007.

This provides a useful perspective on the relative importance of BLM-administered lands in the

overall regional economy, and also shows that the differences among alternatives – in relation

to the regional economy – would be relatively small. For example, the difference in earnings

projected under alternatives A and D would be just 0.1 percent of earnings in year 2007 (2.5

minus 2.4), which would be barely noticeable from a statistical perspective, and would not lead to

wholesale changes in regional economic activity. Other national, state, and regional policies and

trends, such as the value of the dollar, federal fiscal and monetary policy, and global oil and gas

prices, would result in a substantially larger impact to economic activity in the planning area.

Table 4.46. Comparison of Projected Earnings and Employment

Measure Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Forecasted annual

earnings due

to activities on

BLM-administered

surface1

$195.6 $138.8 $195.9 $184.2

Total labor earnings

in 2007 dollars

$7,718 $7,718 $7,718 $7,718

Forecasted annual

earnings as a

percentage of 2007

earnings

2.5% 1.8% 2.5% 2.4%

Forecasted annual

employment due

to activities on

BLM-administered

surface1

3,622 2,621 3,617 3,424

Total employment in

2007 dollars

123,377 123,377 123,377 123,377

Forecasted annual

employment as a

percentage of 2007

employment

2.9% 2.1% 2.9% 2.8%

Source: Forecasted annual earnings and employment are calculated based on the IMPLAN model,

as described in the text. Earnings and employment for 2007, for the five planning area counties, are

from BEA 2009. Earnings are in millions of year 2007 dollars.

1 Estimate of annual earnings and employment includes direct, indirect, and induced economic activity (the

“multiplier effect”).

BLM Bureau of Land Management

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning Model

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1255

4.8.2.2. Methods and Assumptions

The analysis in this section is based on the IMPLAN model as described at the beginning of

the Social Conditions section. IMPLAN focuses on all market transactions within the study

area and serves as a tool for quantifying the earnings and employment associated with a given

BLM alternative. However, it does not address benefits and costs nor does it address non-market

impacts. It also does not specifically address the issues involved with non-earned income. This is

an important consideration because some parts of the planning area, such as Fremont County,

derive almost 40 percent of personal income from non-labor sources; in Hot Springs County,

non-labor income accounts for more than 40 percent of personal income. From a public land

policy perspective, it is important to recognize this distinction when interpreting the IMPLAN

results.

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

● Employment, earnings, and output continue to influence economic and population change in

the planning area (although non-labor income also is a key influence, particularly in Fremont

and Hot Springs counties, as noted immediately above).

● Economic benefits to the planning area accrue from BLM-influenced activities, such as oil and

natural gas development, livestock grazing, and recreation. Economic benefits to the planning

area also accrue from wildlife grazing, to the extent that wildlife grazing contributes to the

availability of and demand for recreational activities.

● Indirect and induced benefits due to minerals, livestock grazing, and recreation can reasonably

be estimated by the IMPLAN model. (The IMPLAN production coefficients were modified to

reflect the interaction of producing sectors in the planning area.)

● Residents spend money on recreation in the planning area, but this does not represent new

money coming into the planning area; therefore, the analysis of economic impacts from

recreation considers only recreation expenditures of nonresidents in the five-county planning

area. In other words, there is a multiplier effect associated with nonresident recreation-related

spending because it results in an input of new money into the planning area. By comparison, it

is assumed that recreation-related expenditures of people who live in the planning area will

generally be spent in the area (although not necessarily on the same activities), given the set of

possible management actions represented by the range of alternatives analyzed.

● For livestock grazing, the analysis reflects a “worst-case” assumption that all acres affected

by surface-disturbing actions (from all the sources listed in Appendix T (p. 1641)) are lands

currently authorized for grazing. Therefore, the number of acres available for grazing in

2027 is the number of acres currently available, minus acres affected in the long term by

surface-disturbing actions. In addition, the analysis of grazing reflects the assumption that

surface-disturbing actions occur at a constant rate over time.

● For livestock grazing, the analysis of baseline AUMs available and reductions in AUMs is

adjusted for the ratio of actual use to permitted use, which is calculated based on the long-term

average of authorized and permitted AUMs for the planning area from 1989 to 2008. This

long-term average is 73 percent. For Alternative B, because there would be a substantial

reduction in permitted AUMs, the estimated ratio of actual use to permitted use would be

somewhat higher, moving steadily from 73 percent in the first year of analysis to 95 percent

in the final year of analysis. Appendix L (p. 1583) provides more details regarding this

adjustment. The data used for Alternative D for IMPLAN reflected AUM levels equal to

Alternative C. However, as environmental analysis of the impacts from other management

actions was assessed, BLM determined that over time there would be a reduction in AUMs in

Alternative D to meet rangeland health standards in places with high resource conflict.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Economic Conditions
1256 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The pace and timing of economic development in the planning area depends on many factors

beyond BLM management. These include national and international energy demand, supply, and

prices; operator business strategies; production conditions in the planning area; and demand and

supply for agricultural products. Because the pace of development in the planning area is driven

largely by external forces such as worldwide economic trends and technological changes, it is

difficult to predict. Therefore, this analysis assumes a relatively constant rate of development,

and actual impacts might differ (e.g., there could be boom-and-bust type short-term impacts) if

the rate of development changes substantially.

The IMPLAN production coefficients were modified to reflect the interaction of producing sectors

in the planning area. As a result, the calibrated model does a better job of generating multipliers

and the subsequent impacts that reflect the interaction between and among the sectors in the

planning area compared to a model using unadjusted national coefficients. Specifically, worker

productivity in oil and gas production is higher in Wyoming than nationally, and more of the hay

used for livestock feed is produced in the planning area, compared to national averages. Key

variables used in the IMPLAN model were filled in using data specific to Wyoming, including

employment estimates, labor earnings, and total industry output.

4.8.2.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.8.2.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The focus of the this analysis is the resource activities that land management decisions would

most likely impact, including oil, gas, livestock grazing, and recreation. Actions from resource

programs or constraints (as described for each alternative) that impact oil, gas, livestock grazing,

and recreation (e.g., surface-disturbing activities that impact the amount of land available for

grazing) are included by implication. Also included by implication are restrictions on ROWs and

corridors, because the RFD scenario for oil and gas, which provides estimated numbers of oil and

gas wells and production, incorporates the restrictions on ROWs and corridors (BLM 2009c).

Restrictions on new ROWs tend to be a negligible factor in the decision to develop additional oil

and gas wells in fields that are already producing, but could be an important factor in a decision to

develop a new field.

Among renewable energy sources, wind and likely also solar have moderate potential in the

planning area; geothermal energy has low potential, and the primary potential for biomass energy

is from a pine-beetle kill. The primary drivers of the pace of wind-energy development will be

market forces and policy variables outside the scope of this RMP. BLM decisions regarding

management of BLM-administered land would result in some impacts in relation to economic

opportunities related to wind-energy development, but the influence of BLM RMP decisions

would be small in relation to the influence of market conditions and policies.

Changes in economic activity impact federal, state, and local tax revenues. While all sectors of

the economy contribute to tax revenues, the analysis of impacts to tax revenues focuses on oil

and gas production, because almost all of the measurable variation in economic activity among

alternatives is in oil and gas.

The focus of the analysis is on regional earnings and output, employment, and tax revenue, with

the region defined as the five-county planning area. The IMPLAN model is run at a regional

(multi-county) scale, with the mathematical relationships that describe linkages between sectors

aggregated to the five-county level. Because of this mathematical aggregation, it is not possible

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1257

to identify total economic impacts for an individual community. For additional information on

the structure of the IMPLAN model and specific assumptions made for the economic modeling

analysis, refer to Appendix L (p. 1583).

4.8.2.3.2. Alternative A

Impacts to Regional Earnings and Output

Based on the IMPLAN model, regional earnings under Alternative A for the modeled sectors (oil

and gas, grazing, and recreation) would average approximately $196 million per year between

2008 and 2027, and regional output would average approximately $1,556 million per year,

resulting from development and activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate. The

net present value of the stream of regional output, discounted at a 7 percent real discount rate

(Office of Management and Budget 1992) would be approximately $15.3 billion over 20 years.

Table 4.47, “Average Annual Impacts on Earnings and Output, by Sector and Alternative for

the Planning Area” (p. 1258) summarizes and compares sector-level breakouts for earnings

and output by alternative.

Regarding renewable-energy development, Alternative A maintains the current management

approach of permitting renewable-energy development on a case-by-case basis. This could

result in adverse impacts by increasing uncertainty for individual firms considering developing

renewable energy in the planning area. Increased uncertainty can hinder development compared

to having a well-established process. The market for wind energy is growing; however, the lack

of transmission lines between areas of high wind-energy potential and population centers is still

an issue that must be overcome before large-scale wind-energy generation would occur (see the

Renewable Energy section for details). Because the renewable-energy market is still developing

and necessary transmission infrastructure is lacking, long-term impacts to the regional economy

related to renewable-energy development under Alternative A are uncertain. However, new

energy-generation projects take several years to obtain financing and permitting – even where

transmission lines exist – so it is likely that any economic impacts related to renewable energy

policy would be relatively small for at least the first 5 to 10 years of the planning period.

Regarding economic activity associated with locatable mineral development and mineral

materials disposals, the BLM generally expects to meet market demand and respond to

applications and does not anticipate that the production of these minerals would vary across

alternatives. Alternative A, in particular, will maintain the current management approach to

leasing BLM-administered lands for exploration and development, and would likely not result

in impacts compared to current conditions.

Impacts to Employment

Employment is a function of the level of economic activity (sales and purchases) among and

between economic sectors. Therefore, impacts to employment are closely related to impacts to

economic output. An increase in output implies an increase in employment, and vice versa.

Based on the IMPLAN model, regional employment under Alternative A for the modeled sectors

would average approximately 3,622 jobs per year between 2008 and 2027 due to activities on

BLM-administered lands and mineral estate. Note that the number of jobs is expressed as “annual

job equivalents,” where one annual job equivalent represents 12 months of employment. For

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Economic Conditions
1258 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

example, 1 annual job equivalent could represent 2 jobs for 6 months each, or 1 job for 12 months.

Annual job equivalents can represent full-time or part-time jobs. Table 4.48, “Average Annual

Impacts on Employment, by Sector and Alternative for the Planning Area” (p. 1258) provides

information on how these jobs break out by sector.

Note that the data in Table 4.47, “Average Annual Impacts on Earnings and Output, by Sector

and Alternative for the Planning Area” (p. 1258) and the other tables in this section showing the

results of the economic model analysis, reflect direct, indirect, and induced impacts to economic

conditions. For example, earnings and employment figures are for the oil and gas, livestock

grazing, and recreation sectors, and all other sectors that relate to those sectors in the interlinkages

of the economy, such as retail, food service, hotels and other accommodation services, and social

services, such as education and health care.

Table 4.47. Average Annual Impacts on Earnings and Output, by Sector and Alternative for

the Planning Area

Sector Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Impacts on Average Earnings (millions of 2007 $)

Oil and Gas $187.1 $130.6 $188.0 $175.8

Livestock Grazing $5.6 $4.3 $5.3 $5.0

Recreation $2.9 $3.9 $2.7 $3.3

Total $195.6 $138.8 $195.9 $184.2

Impacts on Annual Average Output (millions of 2007 $)

Oil and Gas $1,524.8 $1,029.1 $1,531.7 $1,425.9

Livestock Grazing $19.1 $14.7 $18.0 $17.3

Recreation $12.0 $16.1 $11.0 $13.8

Total $1,555.8 $1,059.9 $1,560.8 $1,457.0

Impacts on Net Present Value of Output Over 20 Years (millions of 2007 $)

Oil and Gas $14,959 $10,109 $15,027 $13,991

Livestock Grazing $202 $164 $194 $187

Recreation $111 $141 $104 $125

Total $15,273 $10,414 $15,325 $14,303

Source: Calculated using the IMPLAN model, as described in the text. Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

1 Net Present value from 2008 to 2027, discounted at 7 percent (rate from Office of Management and Budget 1992)

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning Model

Table 4.48. Average Annual Impacts on Employment, by Sector and Alternative for the

Planning Area

Sector Number of Jobs

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Oil and Gas 3,309 2,305 3,324 3,109

Livestock Grazing 180 139 170 163

Recreation 133 178 123 152

Total 3,622 2,621 3,617 3,424

Source: Calculated using the IMPLAN model, as described in the text. Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning Model

Average annual earnings per job would differ for each of these sectors. Based on the IMPLAN

model, earnings per job (expressed in year 2007 dollars) would average:

● Approximately $58,000 for jobs in oil and gas well drilling and completion.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1259

● Approximately $55,000 for jobs in oil and gas production.

● Approximately $31,000 for jobs associated with cattle and sheep grazing.

● Between $20,000 and $22,000 for recreation-related jobs.

Impacts to Tax Revenue

Projected tax revenues under Alternative A due to oil and gas production on federal surface

would average $133.2 million per year for federal royalties, $63.9 million per year for state

severance taxes, and $72.5 million per year for local ad valorem taxes. Because of limited data on

specific locations of projected wells, there is not enough data to apportion the local tax receipts to

individual communities. Table 4.49, “Estimated Oil and Gas Tax Revenues by Alternative for the

Planning Area” (p. 1259) summarizes and compares tax revenues from oil and gas production

under the alternatives. Alternative A would result in a higher estimated oil and gas tax revenue

compared to Alternative B, slightly higher than Alternative D, and slightly less than Alternative C.

Table 4.49. Estimated Oil and Gas Tax Revenues by Alternative for the Planning Area

Tax Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Federal Mineral

Royalties

$133.2 $88.5 $133.8 $124.3

State Severance Taxes $63.9 $42.5 $64.2 $59.6

Local Ad Valorem

Production Taxes

$72.5 $48.2 $72.8 $67.6

Total $269.6 $179.1 $270.8 $251.5

Source: Calculated based on the IMPLAN model and state, federal, and local tax rates, as described in the text.

Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning Model

4.8.2.3.3. Alternative B

Impacts to Regional Earnings and Output

Based on the IMPLAN model, regional earnings under Alternative B for the modeled sectors (oil

and gas, grazing, and recreation) would average approximately $139 million per year between

2008 and 2027, and regional output would average approximately $1,060 million per year due to

activities on BLM-administered lands and mineral estate. The net present value of the stream of

regional output, discounted at a 7 percent real discount rate (Office of Management and Budget

1992), would be approximately $10.4 billion over 20 years. Table 4.47, “Average Annual Impacts

on Earnings and Output, by Sector and Alternative for the Planning Area” (p. 1258) summarizes

and compares sector-level breakouts for earnings and output by alternative.

Alternative B excludes 2.3 million acres from renewable-energy development, and manages

an additional 24,000 acres as avoidance areas for renewable energy. Alternative B opens

approximately 41,000 acres to renewable-energy development, a decrease of approximately

98 percent in area open for renewable-energy development compared to Alternative A. For

wind-energy generation proposals for the open area, the change in management would decrease

uncertainty for firms considering developing renewable energy in the planning area. However,

because Alternative B restricts or excludes renewable-energy development in a much larger

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Economic Conditions
1260 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

portion of the planning area (compared to the potential for being open under Alternative A),

there would likely be less economic activity associated with renewable-energy development

under Alternative B than Alternative A. As noted for Alternative A, transmission infrastructure

is generally lacking; however, the market for wind-energy is growing. Therefore, the regional

economic impact related to renewable-energy development under Alternative B is uncertain,

but likely to be lower in the long term than under Alternative A. In any case, due to the long

time horizon associated with energy project planning and permitting, there would likely be no

observable difference in economic impacts due to renewable-energy development between

alternatives for at least the first 5 to 10 years of the planning period.

Regarding economic activity associated with locatable mineral development and mineral materials

disposals, the BLM generally expects to meet market demand and respond to applications and

does not anticipate that the production of these minerals would vary across the alternatives.

Alternative B restricts the amount of land open to exploration and development of these minerals,

as documented in the Mineral Resources section. However, this restriction would result in a minor

impact to economic conditions compared to current conditions.

Impacts to Employment

Employment is a function of the level of economic activity (sales and purchases) among and

between economic sectors. Therefore, impacts to employment impacts are closely related to

impacts to economic output. An increase in output implies an increase in employment, and

vice versa.

Based on the IMPLAN model, regional employment under Alternative B for the modeled sectors

would average approximately 2,621 jobs per year between 2008 and 2027 due to activities

on BLM-administered lands and mineral estate. Table 4.48, “Average Annual Impacts on

Employment, by Sector and Alternative for the Planning Area” (p. 1258) provides information on

how these jobs break out by sector. Average annual earnings per job would be the same under

Alternative B as Alternative A, and are described above.

Impacts to Tax Revenue

Projected tax revenues under Alternative B due to oil and gas production on federal surface

would average $88.5 million per year for federal royalties, $42.5 million per year for state

severance taxes, and $48.2 million per year for local ad valorem taxes. Because of limited data on

specific locations of projected wells, there is not enough data to apportion the local tax receipts to

individual communities. Table 4.49, “Estimated Oil and Gas Tax Revenues by Alternative for the

Planning Area” (p. 1259) summarizes and compares tax revenues from oil and gas production

under the alternatives. Alternative B would result in the least amount of estimated oil and gas tax

revenues compared to the other alternatives.

4.8.2.3.4. Alternative C

Impacts to Regional Earnings and Output

Based on the IMPLAN model, regional earnings under Alternative C for the modeled sectors (oil

and gas, grazing, and recreation) would average approximately $196 million per year between

2008 and 2027, and regional output would average approximately $1,561 million per year due to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1261

activities on BLM-administered lands and mineral estate. The net present value of the stream of

regional output, discounted at a 7 percent real discount rate (Office of Management and Budget

1992), would be approximately $15.3 billion over 20 years. Table 4.47, “Average Annual Impacts

on Earnings and Output, by Sector and Alternative for the Planning Area” (p. 1258) summarizes

and compares sector-level breakouts for earnings and output by alternative.

Alternative C manages approximately 94,000 acres as renewable-energy development exclusion

areas, and manages approximately 16,000 acres as renewable energy avoidance areas.

Approximately 2.3 million acres will be open to renewable-energy development under Alternative

C, an increase of 8 percent compared to Alternative A. The change in management would increase

renewable-energy development compared to alternatives A and B, because it would decrease

uncertainty for firms considering developing renewable energy in the planning area, and would

provide more opportunity in terms of open lands. As noted in the discussion for Alternative

A, transmission infrastructure is generally lacking; however, the market for wind energy is

growing. Therefore, the long-term regional economic impact related to renewable-energy

development under Alternative C is uncertain, but it would almost certainly be greater than under

alternatives A and B. However, due to the long time horizon associated with energy project

planning and permitting, there would likely be no observable difference in economic impacts

due to renewable-energy development between alternatives for at least the first 5 to 10 years of

the planning period.

Regarding economic activity associated with locatable mineral development and mineral materials

disposals, the BLM generally expects to meet market demand and respond to applications and

does not anticipate that the production of these minerals would vary across the alternatives.

Alternative C increases the amount of land open to exploration and development of these

minerals, as documented in the Mineral Resources section. However, this restriction would likely

result in a minor impact to economic conditions compared to current conditions.

Impacts to Employment

Employment is a function of the level of economic activity (sales and purchases) among and

between economic sectors. Therefore, impacts to employment are closely related to impacts to

economic output. An increase in output implies an increase in employment, and vice versa.

Based on the IMPLAN model, regional employment under Alternative C for the modeled sectors

would average approximately 3,617 jobs per year between 2008 and 2027 due to activities

on BLM-administered lands and mineral estate. Table 4.48, “Average Annual Impacts on

Employment, by Sector and Alternative for the Planning Area” (p. 1258) provides information on

how these jobs break out by sector. Average annual earnings per job would be the same under

Alternative C as Alternative A, and are described above.

Impacts to Tax Revenue

Projected tax revenues under Alternative C due to oil and gas production on federal surface

would average $133.8 million per year for federal royalties, $64.2 million per year for state

severance taxes, and $72.8 million per year for local ad valorem taxes. Because of limited data on

specific locations of projected wells, there is not enough data to apportion the local tax receipts to

individual communities. Table 4.49, “Estimated Oil and Gas Tax Revenues by Alternative for the

Planning Area” (p. 1259) summarizes and compares tax revenues from oil and gas production

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Economic Conditions
1262 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

under the alternatives. Alternative C would result in the greatest estimated oil and gas tax

revenues compared to the other alternatives.

4.8.2.3.5. Alternative D

Impacts to Regional Earnings and Output

Based on the IMPLAN model, regional earnings under Alternative D for the modeled sectors (oil

and gas, grazing, and recreation) would average approximately $185 million per year between

2008 and 2027, and regional output would average approximately $1,458 million per year due to

activities on BLM-administered lands and mineral estate. The net present value of the stream of

regional output, discounted at a 7 percent real discount rate (Office of Management and Budget

1992), would be approximately $14.3 billion over 20 years. Table 4.47, “Average Annual Impacts

on Earnings and Output, by Sector and Alternative for the Planning Area” (p. 1258) summarizes

and compares sector-level breakouts for earnings and output by alternative.

Alternative D excludes approximately 954,322 acres from renewable-energy development, and

manages approximately 1,215,599 acres as avoidance areas for renewable energy. Approximately

224,289 acres will be open to renewable-energy development under Alternative D, a decrease

of about 89 percent compared to Alternative A. The change in management would decrease

uncertainty for firms considering developing renewable energy in the planning area compared to

Alternative A, but it would also close substantial portions of the planning area to renewable-energy

development. Therefore, the overall impact to economic activity related to renewable-energy

development, compared to Alternative A, is uncertain. However, Alternative D would likely

result in greater economic activity from renewable-energy development compared to Alternative

B, and less compared to Alternative C. As noted in the discussion for Alternative A, transmission

infrastructure is generally lacking; however, the market for wind energy is growing. However,

due to the long time horizon associated with energy project planning and permitting, there would

likely be no observable difference in economic impact due to renewable-energy development

between alternatives for at least the first 5 to 10 years of the planning period.

Regarding economic activity associated with locatable mineral development and mineral materials

disposals, the BLM generally expects to meet market demand and respond to applications and

does not anticipate that the production of these minerals would vary across the alternatives.

Alternative D increases the amount of land open to exploration and development of these

minerals, as documented in the Mineral Resources section. However, this restriction would likely

result in a minor impact to economic conditions compared to current conditions.

Impacts to Employment

Employment is a function of the level of economic activity (sales and purchases) among and

between economic sectors. Thus, employment impacts are closely related to impacts on economic

output. An increase in output implies an increase in employment, and vice versa.

Based on the IMPLAN model, regional employment under Alternative D for the modeled sectors

will average approximately 3,424 jobs per year between 2008 and 2027 due to activities on

BLM-administered lands and mineral estate. Table 4.47, “Average Annual Impacts on Earnings

and Output, by Sector and Alternative for the Planning Area” (p. 1258) provides information on

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1263

how these jobs break out by sector. Average annual earnings per job would be the same under

Alternative D as Alternative A, and are described above.

Impacts to Tax Revenue

Projected tax revenues under Alternative D due to oil and gas production on federal surface

would average $124.3 million per year for federal royalties, $59.6 million per year for state

severance taxes, and $67.6 million per year for local ad valorem taxes. Because of limited data on

specific locations of projected wells, there is not enough data to apportion the local tax receipts to

individual communities. Table 4.49, “Estimated Oil and Gas Tax Revenues by Alternative for the

Planning Area” (p. 1259) summarizes and compares tax revenues from oil and gas production

under the alternatives. Alternative D would result in greater estimated oil and gas tax revenues

than Alternative B, and slightly less than Alternative A or C.

4.8.3. Health and Safety

As addressed in this section, health and safety includes AMLs, coalbed fires, physical hazards,

hazardous substances, and hydrogen sulfide gas.

The generation, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous substances are subject to the

federal and state laws and regulations identified in Appendix A (p. 1427). In addition, Onshore

Order #6 addresses requirements for operations in areas known or with the potential to produce

hydrogen sulfide gas. These laws and regulations are designed to safeguard human health

and safety and to protect the environment and would minimize the short- and long-term risks

associated with hazardous substances and hydrogen sulfide gas.

4.8.3.1. Summary of Impacts

All alternatives would result in beneficial impacts to health and safety from management of AML

sites and coalbed fires. Under all alternatives, the BLM and the Wyoming DEQ will identify and

plan for remediation of AML and coalbed fire sites that would adversely impact health and safety.

Primary impacts to health and safety from physical hazards would result from management

that increases activities in areas with physical hazards and subsequently increases the risk and

potential for accidents in these areas. Providing warning signs or other institutional controls, such

as fencing, would result in similar impacts under all alternatives.

Under all alternatives, impacts from management of hazardous substances would be the same.

The potential for impacts would vary by alternative based on the level of mineral activity.

Alternative C, with the greatest amount of mineral activity, could increase the generation, use,

transportation, and disposal of hazardous substances. To reduce adverse impacts to health and

safety, authorized users would adhere to hazardous spill response plans, stipulations, and all

applicable laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous substances. These requirements would

provide a detailed strategy and process for responding to hazardous substance releases, therefore

reducing the short-term impacts from contamination.

4.8.3.2. Methods and Assumptions

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Health and Safety
1264 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● The BLM will set as its highest AML physical safety action priority cleanup of AML sites

situated (1) where a death or injury has occurred and the site has not already been addressed,

or (2) on or in the immediate vicinity of lands with high visitor use (BLM 2000). AML sites

that adversely impact watersheds also will be a high priority. The BLM continues to support

the Wyoming DEQ AML Division in reclaiming AML sites on public surface.

● AML sites, especially open shafts and adits, pose a danger to livestock and wildlife as well as

humans. AML sites not reclaimed adversely impact recreational users.

● No assumptions were identified for physical hazards.

● All new hazardous materials and waste sites are identified and characterized.

● Resource development activities identify any possible generation of hazardous waste.

● No substantial new hazardous materials uses or waste generation will occur.

● The BLM Hazard Management and Resource Restoration Program responds to all hazardous

material releases on public surface. Emergency cleanup actions are implemented on sites

posing a substantial threat to the public and the environment.

4.8.3.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

The Required Design Features under Alternative D for the design of impoundment ponds is

implicit in the limits on surface disturbance contained in Alternative B’s closing of large areas of

the planning area to development, including oil and gas leasing and withdrawing more than 1.6

million acres from locatable mineral entry. The Required Design Features would be less beneficial

to health and human safety than the stricter limits under Alternative B. This management would

result in far fewer adverse impacts, particularly with regard to WNV, a threat to humans and

domestic and wild horses, and greater sage-grouse and other wildlife. The adverse impacts of

authorizing impound ponds that do not utilize Required Design Features or equivalents as would

likely occur under alternatives A and C could be severe, depending on weather and other factors.

The impacts to greater sage-grouse are identified in that section.

Alternative D could, over time, result in adverse impacts to the economic activities resulting from

federal authorization by reason of the calculation of disturbance for purposes of disturbance caps

and limits of one development per 640 acres. This limit does not apply to activities under the 43

CFR 3800 regulations (locatable mineral entry). However, the unreclaimed disturbance associated

with mining, such as from uranium mines or mine tailings, are counted in the disturbance when

authorizing oil and gas development. In places in the planning area that have potential for oil and

gas development, which is the greatest contributor to the local and state economies, and uranium

potential, such as the area near Green Mountain, the Core Area disturbance calculations could

preclude oil and gas development because the surface cap had been reached by new disturbances

associated with uranium mining. The economic consequences of this management would depend

on the extent to which oil and gas development were precluded.

4.8.3.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Abandoned Mine Lands and Coalbed Fires

To reduce the threat of physical and environmental impacts from AML sites and coalbed fires,

the BLM will remediate sites based on risk.

Abandoned mines, especially shafts, pose safety hazards to livestock and wildlife as well as

people. Long‐term beneficial impacts to health and safety would result from the Wyoming DEQ

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Health and Safety February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1265

AML Division continuing to work with the BLM to mitigate hazards associated with AML

sites and coalbed fires.

Implementation of any of the alternatives would not be anticipated to result in additional AML

sites or increase the risks at AML sites or coalbed fires that could adversely impact health and

safety.

Physical Hazards

The BLM will manage physical hazards to reduce risks to the public by providing warnings and,

where appropriate, developing mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impacts associated

with physical hazards.

Implementation of any of the alternatives would not result in any increase in the potential for

physical hazards; however, management could decrease the risks and potential impacts to health

and safety resulting from physical hazards.

Hazardous Substances

Increases in human presence and activity associated with recreation, mineral activity, and ROW

development increase risks associated with generation, use, transportation, and disposal of

hazardous substances. Mineral activities are the most likely activities to increase the risk of

hazardous substances to health and safety.

Impacts to health and safety from the management of hazardous substances would be the same

under all alternatives because there are no separate management actions by alternative.

Implementing hazardous materials management activities will address human health and

environmental risks from hazardous substances and hydrogen sulfide gas. Due to the increase in

activity in oil and gas extraction, hydrogen sulfide poses an increasing threat to human health

and safety. To reduce the risks to human health, all hydrogen sulfide plans will comply with

Onshore Order #6, which identifies “uniform national requirements and minimum standards of

performance expected from operators when conducting operations involving oil or gas that is

known or could reasonably be expected to contain hydrogen sulfide.” In addition, the BLM will

mitigate safety concerns associated with hydrogen sulfide through signs, warning sirens, and

public education. All of these management actions would reduce the potential for human health

and safety risks from hydrogen sulfide. Any potential impacts to health and safety from hydrogen

sulfide would increase in relation to the level of mineral activity that releases hydrogen sulfide.

The BLM manages hazardous materials to reduce risks to visitors, employees, and the

environment; to restore contaminated land; and to perform emergency‐response activities in

accordance with appropriate laws, policies, and regulations. Management to reduce risk and

contamination would reduce potential impacts to health and safety from hazardous substances.

There could be substantive indirect impacts related to risks from hazardous substances during

remediation.

Reporting spills and releases of chemicals, petroleum products, and produced water to the

Wyoming DEQ would reduce the potential for short‐term and long‐term impacts to health and

safety by controlling spills and facilitating an appropriate response to hazardous substance spills.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Health and Safety
1266 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.8.4. Environmental Justice

This section addresses the potential for the alternatives to result in disproportionate adverse

impacts to minority and low-income populations, including direct, indirect, short-term, and

long-term impacts. Appendix A (p. 1427) identifies the laws, regulations, policies, and guidance

considered in the analysis of disproportionate adverse impacts.

Because the analysis of disproportionate adverse impacts depends on identified impacts related to

resources and resource uses, definitions of adverse impacts as they apply to environmental justice

issues are closely related to the definitions of adverse impacts for other resource areas (e.g., social

resources). For example, the displacement of a mobile home park that houses a low-income

population to build a new road could be a disproportionate direct impact. An example of a

disproportionate indirect impact would be a reduction in social services to low-income individuals

that could result from decreased tax revenues as a result of decreased mineral production.

4.8.4.1. Summary of Impacts

The alternatives would be identical regarding potential impacts to minority and low income

populations. No particular BLM actions proposed under any of the alternatives would cause

disproportionate adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations. The BLM has

considered all input from persons regardless of their race, ethnicity, income status, or other

social and economic characteristics.

4.8.4.2. Methods and Assumptions

Because the analysis of disproportionate adverse impacts is based on impacts to resources and

resource uses, the assumptions for this analysis implicitly include the assumptions of other

resource areas as they relate to the identification and analysis of impacts. In addition, this analysis

assumes that the latest available demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau and other sources

accurately represent the population in the planning area.

In accordance with BLM and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance for assessing

environmental justice in the planning process, an area is considered to contain a minority

population if either the minority population of the impacted area exceeds 50 percent or the

percentage of minority population in the affected area is meaningfully greater than the percentage

in the general population. The “general population” is defined as a relevant comparison area,

such as the state.

In 2008, the minority population in the socioeconomic analysis area counties ranged from 5

percent (Hot Springs County) to 27 percent (Fremont County); the state average is 13 percent. On

the WRIR, 33 percent of the population was minority. The vast majority of the population in the

planning area reside in Fremont County. Within Fremont County, 18 percent of the population

was in poverty in 2000 compared to 21 percent on the WRIR. In 2008, the Fremont County

poverty level was 13 percent; no comparable data are available for the WRIR for 2008. The

state poverty average is approximately 10 percent. Both in terms of minority populations and

poverty, Fremont County and the WRIR are considered to have a relatively high concentration

of minority population and low-income population, as defined in BLM and CEQ guidance,

compared to the state.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Justice February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1267

4.8.4.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.8.4.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

While there are minority and low-income populations in the planning area, no particular BLM

actions under any of the alternatives have been identified as causing disproportionate adverse

impacts to these populations. Although Fremont County has a high concentration of low-income

and minority populations, there are no direct or indirect impacts under the alternatives that would

affect these populations in a different way than the general population in the planning area. For

example, the lower economic activity associated with Alternative B would cut across all sectors

of the economy – from higher-skill managerial jobs to lower-skill service jobs. Therefore, there

would be no identifiable environmental justice issues or direct or indirect impacts associated

with any of the alternatives specific to any minority or low-income community or population as

defined in Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 11, 1994) or BLM IM 2002-164 (Guidance

on Environmental Justice in Planning).

Environmental justice principles also require that the BLM provide opportunities for people of

all backgrounds to have a meaningful voice in the planning process. The BLM has provided

numerous opportunities in a variety of formats, and has considered all input from persons

regardless of their race, ethnicity, income status, or other social and economic characteristics.

4.8.5. Tribal Treaty Rights

The BLM has not identified any tribal treaty rights such as access to tribal hunting, fishing,

or resource-collection areas that were reserved by treaties that could be impacted by RMP

management decisions. Impacts to tribes are analyzed on a project-specific basis in consultation

with the appropriate tribes. Any alternative that would impact wildlife, fish, or native plant

communities in the planning area would have the potential to impact the treaty rights of a tribe.

BLM guidance and statutory authorities protect sacred sites and other areas of importance to the

tribes and are considered on a site-specific basis.

4.9. Climate Change

4.9.1. Summary of Impacts

GHG emissions from oil and gas development and production, vehicular traffic and authorized

livestock grazing will be the greatest under alternatives A and C. Alternative B, followed by

Alternative D, has the fewest adverse impacts because they authorize less of these activities

that adversely impact the climate.

Alternative B, followed by Alternative D, has the most beneficial impacts because vegetation

resources are more protected and wildlife protections are stronger to limit minerals development

and long-term surface disturbance. Alternative D authorizes more livestock grazing AUMs (as

well as more surface disturbance associated with range infrastructure) so it is less beneficial than

Alternative B. Over time, the difference in AUMs as a measure of livestock emissions of CH4

may be substantially less beneficial. Alternatives A and C will have fewer beneficial impacts as a

result of limitations on surface disturbance to protect wildlife. AUM levels are likely to be the

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Tribal Treaty Rights
1268 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

highest under these two alternatives, although only moderately higher than under Alternative D

with correspondingly higher CH4 emissions associated with livestock grazing.

4.9.2. Methods and Assumptions

A growing body of evidence indicates that Earth’s atmosphere is warming. Records show that

surface temperatures in the Wyoming region have risen approximately 1.5° Fahrenheit since the

1960 to 1979 baseline years (GCRP 2009b). The largest increase in average temperature has

occurred in the winter months in the northern portions of the region. Relatively cold days in the

region are becoming less frequent and relatively hot days are becoming more frequent (GCRP

2009b). Observed changes in oceans, ecosystems, and ice cover are consistent with this warming

trend (National Academy of Sciences 2006).

Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of GHG emissions – including

CO2, CH4, N2O), water vapor and several trace gases – on global climate change. Through

complex interactions at regional and global scales, these GHG emissions cause a net warming

of the atmosphere (which makes surface temperatures suitable for life on Earth), primarily

by decreasing the amount of heat energy Earth radiates back into space. Although GHG

concentrations in the atmosphere and climatic conditions have varied throughout Earth’s

history, recent industrialization and burning of fossil fuels has caused global atmospheric CO2

concentration to increase dramatically; this most recent CO2 increase is likely to contribute

to overall climatic changes (National Academy of Sciences 2006). Global atmospheric

concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O have increased markedly as a result of human activities

since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values (as determined from ice cores spanning

many thousands of years).

The global increase in CO2 concentrations is due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use

change, while those of CH4 and N2O are due to agricultural soil management, animal manure

management, sewage treatment, and mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels (IPCC

2007a, EPA 2009b). According to climate change researchers, the impacts of climate change are

expected to vary by region, season, and time of day (National Academy of Sciences 2006, GCRP

2009b). Computer model forecasts indicate that increases in temperature will not be evenly or

equally distributed, but are likely to be accentuated at higher latitudes. Warming during winter is

expected to be greater than during the summer, and increases in daily minimum temperatures are

more likely than increases in daily maximum temperatures (National Academy of Sciences 2006).

Within North America, the report specifically forecasts that: warming in western mountains

is projected to cause decreased snowpack, more winter flooding and reduced summer flows,

exacerbating competition for over-allocated water resources; in the early decades of the century,

moderate climate change is projected to increase aggregate yields of rain-fed agriculture by 5

to 20 percent, but with important variability among regions; major challenges are projected for

crops that are near the warm end of their suitable range or which depend on highly utilized water

resources; cities that currently experience heat waves are expected to be further challenged by an

increased number, intensity and duration of heat waves during the course of the century, with

potential for adverse health impacts; and coastal communities and habitats will be increasingly

stressed by climate change impacts interacting with development and pollution. Specific

modeling and/or assessments of the potential impacts for the planning area and for the State

of Wyoming currently do not exist.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods and Assumptions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1269

The lack of scientific tools (models with sufficient spatial and temporal resolution) to forecast

climate change even at regional scales limits the ability to quantify current and future impacts of

climate change in the planning area. The following paragraphs describe potential future impacts

of climate change that can be reasonably anticipated for the planning area; however, some of these

impacts are known to already be occurring in the area. However, over the next 20 years, tools will

become available that will allow for a better site-specific analysis of the impacts of a proposed

activity on GHG and the site-specific impact from climate change. The U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS), for example, is developing GIS based tools to determine the carbon storage of specific

soils. Ongoing research is analyzing the response of different vegetation types to increasing CO2,

longer growing seasons, higher heat and more unpredictable rain patterns.

Increasing temperatures in the planning area are likely to contribute to increased evaporation,

drought frequencies, and declining water quantity. The warming of lakes and rivers will

adversely affect the thermal structure and water quality of hydrological systems, which will add

additional stress to water resources in the region (IPCC 2007b). The planning area depends on

temperature-sensitive springtime snowpack to meet demand for water from municipal, industrial,

agricultural, recreational uses and BLM-authorized activities. The USGS notes that mountain

ecosystems in the western United States are particularly sensitive to climate change, especially in

the higher elevations, where much of the snowpack occurs, which have experienced three times

the global average temperature increase over the past century (USGS 2010). Higher temperatures

are causing more winter precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow, which contributes to earlier

snowmelt. Additional declines in snowmelt associated with climate change are projected, which

would reduce the amount of water available during summer (GCRP 2009b). Rapid spring

snowmelt due to sudden and unseasonal temperature increases can also lead to greater erosive

events and unstable soil conditions.

Within a given region, increasing temperatures could affect the amount of water vapor in the

atmosphere, the timing and amount of precipitation, the intensity of storm systems, snow melt,

and soil moisture. All of these factors can affect climate, day-to-day weather conditions, and air

quality in the planning area. There is evidence that recent warming is impacting terrestrial and

aquatic biological systems (IPCC 2007b). Warming temperatures are leading to earlier timing of

spring events such as leaf-unfolding, bird migration, and egg-laying (IPCC 2007b). The range of

many plant and animal species has shifted poleward and to higher elevation, as the climate of

these species’ traditional habitat changes. As future changes in climate are projected to be even

greater than those in the recent past, there will likely be even larger range shifts in the coming

decades (Lawler et al. 2009). Warming temperatures are also linked to earlier “greening” of

vegetation in the spring and longer thermal growing seasons (IPCC 2007b). In aquatic habitats,

increases in algal abundance in high-altitude lakes have been linked to warmer temperatures,

while range changes and earlier fish migrations in rivers have also been observed (IPCC 2007b).

Climate change is likely to combine with other human-induced stress to further increase the

vulnerability of ecosystems to other pests, invasive species, and loss of native species. Climate

change is likely to affect breeding patterns, water and food supply, and habitat availability to

some degree. Sensitive species in the planning area, such as the greater sage-grouse, which are

already stressed by declining habitat, increased development and other factors, could experience

additional pressures as a result of climate change.

The observed change in glaciers in the Wind River Mountains identified in Chapter 3, indicates

that these changes will influence land-management decisions in the planning area. These factors

may change migration patterns of wildlife, appropriate seasons of use for livestock grazing,

increase fire intensity and return interval and INNS spread. The susceptibility to cheatgrass in the

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods and Assumptions
1270 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

southwest United States and the circular reinforcing relationship between cheatgrass infestation

and landscape-level fires that has substantial contributed to greater sage-grouse reduction

in numbers, was triggered in part by historic levels of high heat and drought. With climate

fluctuations expected to see hotter and drier summers in the norther Rocky Mountains including

the planning area with an increase in WNV (which responds positively to that type of climate

condition) this climate change could have very serious impacts to wildlife, particularly greater

sage-grouse, forage availability, vegetation resources, and air quality.

Climate change also poses challenges for many resource uses on BLM-administered land.

Increased temperatures, drought and evaporation may reduce seasonal water supplies for livestock

and could impact forage availability. However, in non-drought years, longer growing seasons

resulting from thermal increases may increase forage availability throughout the year. Shifts in

wildlife habitat due to climate change may influence hunting and fishing activities, and early

snowmelt may impact winter and water-based recreational activities. Drought and resulting stress

on vegetation is likely to increase the frequency and intensity of mountain bark beetle and other

insect infestations, which reduces the potential for sale of forest products on BLM-administered

lands.

Increases in average summer temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt in the planning area are

expected to increase the risk of wildfires by increasing summer moisture deficits (GCRP 2009b).

Studies have shown that earlier snowmelts can lead to a longer dry season, which increases the

incidence of landscape-level fire (Westerling et al. 2006). Together with historic changes in land

use, climate change is anticipated to affect the variability in the occurrence of wildfire throughout

the western United States. Although the impact of climatic factors varies by ecosystem type

and from year to year, drought, low winter precipitation, wind conditions, and high summer

temperatures are positively associated with wildfire occurrence (NPS 2010). During the last 20

years, research has shown that these factors have led to an increase in the frequency of very large

wildfires and total acres burned throughout the Rocky Mountain region (NPS 2010). In response

to drought and higher temperatures, the number of wildfires and total acres burned has generally

increased within the planning area; see Figure 3.18, “Acres Burned and Number of Wildfires per

Year within the Lander Field Office, 1974-2008” (p. 360) in Chapter 3.

Climate change science and projections of climate change is a continually growing and emerging

science. Additional and recent information on climate change and regional projections of

climate change for the planning area can be found through the U.S. Global Change Research

Program (http://www.globalchange.gov/) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(http://www.ipcc.ch/).

Several federal initiatives have been launched to improve the ability to understand, predict, and

adapt to the challenges of climate change. The Secretary of the Interior signed Secretarial Order

3289 on February 22, 2010, establishing a Department-wide, scientific-based approach to increase

understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective response to impacts on managed

resources. The order reiterated the importance of analyzing potential climate change impacts

when undertaking long-range planning issues, and also established several initiatives including the

development of eight Regional Climate Science Centers. Regional Climate Science Centers would

provide scientific information and tools that land and resource managers can apply to monitor and

adapt to climate changes at regional and local scales (DOI 2010). The North Central Climate

Science Center, which will incorporate the planning area, has a target establishment date of 2011.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods and Assumptions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1271

Given the broad spatial influence of climate change which requires response at the landscape-level,

the DOI also established Landscape Conservation Cooperatives which are management-science

partnerships that help to inform management actions addressing climate change across landscapes.

These Cooperatives are formed and directed by land, water, wildlife and cultural resource

managers and interested public and private organizations, designed to increase the scope of

climate change response beyond federal lands.

In addition to efforts being undertaken to better respond and adapt to climate change, other federal

initiatives are being implemented to mitigate climate change. The Carbon Storage Project was

implemented to develop carbon sequestration methodologies for geological (i.e., underground) and

biological (e.g., forests and rangelands) carbon storage. The project is a collaboration of federal

agency and external stakeholders to enhance carbon storage in geologic formations and in plants

and soils in an environmentally responsible manner. The Carbon Footprint Project is a project to

develop a unified GHG emission reduction program for the DOI, including setting a baseline and

reduction goal for the Department’s GHG emissions and energy use. More information about

DOI’s efforts to respond to climate change is available at: www.doi.gov/archive/climatechange/.

A variety of activities in the planning area currently generate GHGs. Fuels combustion, industrial

processes and any number of other activities on public lands result in direct emissions of GHGs.

Direct emissions in the planning area include those related to current and ongoing oil and gas and

other minerals development, fire events, motorized vehicle use (e.g., OHVs), livestock grazing,

facilities development, and other fugitive emissions. Indirect GHG emissions in the planning area

include the demand for electricity generated outside the area. Contributions to climate change

also result from land use changes (conversion of land to less reflective surfaces that absorb heat,

such as concrete or pavement), and soil erosion (which can reduce snow’s solar reflectivity and

contribute to faster snowmelt). The emission of GHG by some BLM authorized activities are

provided in the Air Quality section of this chapter.

4.9.3. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.9.3.1. Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Soil resources and the vegetation it supports are major carbon sinks. See the Soil section.

Removal of vegetation releases the soil organic carbon and the carbon stored in the vegetation,

particularly the roots. Accordingly, the more surface disturbance and loss of vegetation, the more

the activity contributes to GHG. This carbon is in addition to the emissions identified in the Air

Quality section. The amount of carbon released varies depending upon the type of soil and

vegetation and the vegetation that replaces it (growing trees, for example, are a greater carbon

sink than grasses). The amount of surface disturbance varies by alternative (see the Soil section).

Vegetation resources are carbon sinks. The impacts to the type and health of the vegetation will

directly impact the amount of carbon that is released into the atmosphere. The management of

vegetation resources on BLM-administered lands varies by alternative. The more beneficial the

impacts to vegetation resources, the more reduced the release of carbon, particularly where

management focuses vegetation treatment on degraded areas with reforestation or revegetation of

degraded areas.

Forests are important carbon sinks but as trees move from early to late seral stages, the overall

carbon being removed from the atmosphere decreases and mature trees become a potential carbon

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
1272 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

liability if the carbon is released to the atmosphere by decay or fire. Analyzing this impact is

extremely complex and depends in no small part on the use of harvested trees. Since timber

harvesting does not vary meaningfully by alternative (although forest management does), the

impacts of forest management on climate change is not further analyzed. The impacts of climate

change to forest resources in the planning area are identified in Chapter 3.

All alternatives authorize livestock grazing on almost all of the planning area (there is less than 1

percent difference in areas closed to livestock grazing). However, livestock grazing management

varies by alternative both in terms of the type of management systems to be utilized and, over

time, the number of AUMs (Appendix L (p. 1583)). Improper livestock grazing management

has the potential to adversely impacts soils and vegetation and lead to increased INNS, all of

which would increase the release of carbon from soil and vegetation. See the Soil section. Cattle

themselves are emitters of GHG in the form of CH4 (which is more powerful at warming the

atmosphere than CO2) and there would be more than a moderate difference in the CH4 emitted

by alternative, as the AUM reductions from the baseline (280,813 AUMs) were implemented.

However, an analysis of the CH4 emitted by livestock grazing can be done, if at all, on an

allotment specific basis. The amount of CH4 emitted depends on diet, supplementation, and other

factors not part of BLM management. Livestock grazing strategies can improve forage so as to

reduce CH4 production as well as reduce adverse impacts to soils and vegetation. Over time,

technological changes may occur that change the amount of uncaptured CH4 from livestock. The

United States government is working with operators of confined animal field lots to provide

anaerobic digestors that will capture the CH4 and use it for energy production. The limits on

technical modeling and the need for site-specific information result in climate change analysis of

livestock grazing being limited to the impacts to soil and vegetation from the management.

ROWs such as wind-energy development have the potential to impact climate change, either

beneficially, by reducing the burning of carbon based fuels to generate electricity, or adversely, by

increasing surface disturbance in locations far removed from the ultimate users of the electricity.

The alternatives vary in the amount of industrial wind energy that is likely to be authorized.

However, the impacts on climate change of these actions cannot be determined without more site

and project specific information. For example, if the generated electricity is utilized locally

and replaces coal generated electricity, the beneficial impacts are far greater than if the power

is generated and transported across hundreds of miles of new transmission lines and replaces

electricity generated through the burning of CH4 in a cogenerated facility that captures the heat

from the burning of the CH4. Recognizing that the end use of the energy is too speculative for

analysis, the BLM did not analyze the downstream impacts of wind-generated energy, and did not

attempt to measure the net benefits of using a lower carbon fuel to generate electricity.

4.9.3.2. Alternative A

4.9.3.2.1. Program Management

Management under Alternative A protects soils and vegetation to a moderate degree and is

anticipated to have the highest AUMs with the most livestock on BLM-administered lands.

4.9.3.2.2. Resources

The management described in the respective section (see the Air Quality, Soil, and Vegetation

sections) addresses the management actions that adversely or beneficially impacts air, soils, and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Detailed Analysis of Alternatives February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1273

vegetation. That analysis reflects the extent to which Alternative A beneficially or adversely

impacts climate change by contributing to a release of carbon from the soil and vegetation or

atmospheric carbon sequestration.

4.9.3.2.3. Resource Uses

The emissions associated with BLM authorized activities are analyzed in the Air Quality section,

including the increase in fugitive dust which adversely impacts vegetation, and reduces albedo,

or reflectivity, of snow and glaciers. These impacts are all contributors to climate change.

Reclamation of initial disturbance will stop carbon loss associated with vegetation removal but

not recapture any of the carbon released to the atmosphere. Livestock grazing under Alternative A

will have the most surface disturbance associated with range improvement projects with adverse

impacts to soils and vegetation. By authorizing AUMs up to the total permitted use, Alternative A

will result in the most CH4 gas emitted by livestock as well as all GHG emissions by vehicular

use associated with large numbers of AUMs.

4.9.3.2.4. Special Designations

The impacts to air quality, soils, and vegetation by special designation management will have

the same adverse or beneficial impacts to climate change. Management that protects vegetation

in ACECs and that limits surface disturbance in the ACECs where setting is important will

have a reduced adverse impact by reducing surface disturbance. However, GHG emissions may

incrementally increase, if tourism and recreation increase, from travel-related emissions. The

impacts of Alternative A in that regard are thought to be moderate.

4.9.3.3. Alternative B

4.9.3.3.1. Program Management

Alternative B manages with an emphasis on resource protections and a limit on surface

disturbance. Alternative B management will likely limit wind-energy development. Alternative

B over time will authorize the fewest AUMs and the most vegetation treatments to improve

vegetation condition.

4.9.3.3.2. Resources

The management described in the respective section (see the Air Quality, Soil, and Vegetation

sections) addresses the management actions that adversely or beneficially impacts air, soils, and

vegetation. That analysis reflects that Alternative B has more beneficial impacts on air, soils and

vegetation in relation to Alternative B. Accordingly, Alternative B would have more beneficially

impacts to climate change than Alternative A and fewer adverse impacts. This is particularly true

because of limits on surface disturbance for the benefit of biological resources.

4.9.3.3.3. Resource Uses

Alternative B has fewer adverse impacts to climate change by having lower GHG emissions than

Alternative A and less mineral related surface disturbance. Livestock grazing management under

Alternative B would have both fewer adverse impacts from livestock grazing emission of CH4 but

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
1274 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

would also most beneficially impact climate change by emphasizing vegetation improvement

projects instead of infrastructure-type projects. Emphasis on improving degraded rangeland yields

beneficial impacts to climate change by increasing vegetation to improve carbon capture and

stopping the loss of organic carbon from soil. Over time, AUM use would be reduced as livestock

grazing management would need to reduce numbers and seasons of use to meet rangeland

objectives without the use of infrastructure. Vegetation utilization under Alternative B is likely

to have more beneficial impacts to the climate because the use is “light” with substantially less

risk of removing past the point at which production is adversely impacted. Over time, these

beneficial impacts could be substantial.

4.9.3.3.4. Special Designations

The beneficial impacts described in the Special Designations sections of soil, water, vegetation,

and wildlife from will beneficially impact climate change in the same manner, which is at

least substantially more beneficial than Alternative A. Limits on surface disturbance, roads,

and mineral development for the protection of values of concern will beneficially impact the

climate. Conversely, increase in recreation and heritage tourism because of special designation

management will adversely impact climate change by increasing transportation related emissions.

It is likely that tourism will increase under Alternative B; see the Economic Conditions section for

a comparison of the anticipated increase in recreation among all of the alternatives.

4.9.3.4. Alternative C

4.9.3.4.1. Program Management

Alternative C is very similar to Alternative A in its management of air, soils, vegetation, minerals,

and livestock grazing. Alternative C has an emphasis on resource use with a much reduced

level of protection for biological resources.

4.9.3.4.2. Resources

Impacts to air, soil, and vegetation under Alternative C are found in the Air Quality, Soil, and

Vegetation sections. The impacts are very similar to Alternative A and substantially more adverse

than Alternative B. Accordingly, Alternative C would have similar adverse impacts to climate

change as Alternative A and substantially more adverse than Alternative B.

4.9.3.4.3. Resource Uses

Alternative C resource use management is similar to Alternative A although somewhat less

restrictive. Impacts on the climate from this management are very similar to those under

Alternative A and substantially more adverse than under Alternative B. Impacts from livestock

grazing to climate change would be more adverse than under Alternative B but less than under

Alternative A because, over time, fewer AUMs would be authorized. Alternative C has fewer

limits on ROWs and more surface disturbance associated with mineral and realty development.

Alternative C, like Alternative A, would emphasize infrastructure rather than the vegetation

treatments that result in beneficial impacts under Alternative B.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Detailed Analysis of Alternatives February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1275

4.9.3.4.4. Special Designations

Special designation management under Alternative C (no ACECs and minimal protections of the

NHT) would result in adverse impacts described in the Special Designations sections of each

resource. These impacts would be somewhat more adverse than Alternative A and substantially

more adverse than Alternative B. The same adverse impacts to air, soil, and vegetation caused

by allowing surface disturbance would adversely impact the climate. It is likely that there will

be little additional recreation-related emissions under Alternative C because the BLM will

not improve existing recreational opportunities and affords historic settings less protections,

particularly in comparison to Alternative B.

4.9.3.5. Alternative D

4.9.3.5.1. Program Management

Alternative D is similar in its protections of air, soil, and vegetation as Alternative B, but over a

smaller area. Greater sage-grouse protections are very similar, although slightly less restrictive.

Alternative D manages livestock grazing in a way that is more similar to Alternative C than to

Alternative A or B but with more limits on livestock grazing.

4.9.3.5.2. Resources

Impacts from management of air, soil, and vegetation under Alternative D are analyzed in the Air

Quality, Soil, and Vegetation sections. Impacts are less adverse than alternatives A and C but

more adverse than Alternative B. The comparative impacts to climate would be the same.

4.9.3.5.3. Resource Uses

Alternative D's impacts from resource uses to air soil and vegetation are described in those

sections with corresponding impacts to climate. Alternative D authorizes less surface disturbance

than Alternative C and more than Alternative B. The impacts of oil and gas and other mineral

developments are analyzed in the Air Quality section; Alternative D has fewer adverse impacts to

the climate than alternatives A and C, but more than Alternative B.

Adverse impacts to the climate from livestock grazing under Alternative D are less than under

Alternative C, particularly over time, but more than under Alternative B because more AUMs

will be authorized with more range infrastructure. Like alternatives A and C, Alternative D has a

higher utilization level with a greater risk of impairing the vegetation's ability to sequester carbon,

an adverse impact to the climate. Alternative D management emphasizes infrastructure when

tied to a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy. This is likely to lead to less infrastructure because of

resource conflicts but probably not enough vegetation treatment to meaningfully increase carbon

capture in degraded rangelands. Over time, Alternative D will have fewer AUMs than Alternative

C, so less CH4 will be emitted by the livestock and in livestock related transportation.

4.9.3.5.4. Special Designations

Special designation management under Alternative D is similar to, but less beneficial than under

Alternative B in terms of impacts to the climate. The difference is analyzed in more detail in the

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
1276 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Air Quality, Soil, and Vegetation sections. While fewer limits on surface disturbance will occur

than under Alternative B, the difference will be only moderate or less because of VRM associated

with the special designations. Alternative D has substantially fewer adverse impacts to climate

than Alternative A, and much fewer than Alternative C.

4.10. Cumulative Impacts

CEQ defines cumulative effects as:

The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future

actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes

such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7).

For the Lander RMP revision, each of the three components of this definition of cumulative

effects is addressed as follows:

● Incremental impacts of the RMP revision. The incremental impacts of the action (i.e., the

revision of the existing plan), are described for each resource in the preceding sections.

● Impacts from all past and present actions. The impacts from all past and present actions

are captured in the baseline conditions presented in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. As

discussed in that chapter, the description of the current affected environment reflects past

and present actions.

● Reasonably foreseeable future actions. Other reasonably foreseeable future actions are

identified in Appendix T (p. 1641).

The analysis of cumulative impacts serves to place the projected incremental impacts from the

management alternatives in the context of past, present, and future impacts. This combination

necessarily involves projections and limited analyses. Public documents prepared by federal,

state, and local agencies are the primary sources of information regarding past, present, and future

actions. Speculative projects are not included in the projections, but areas of high potential for

development or resource use that are unconstrained by management actions are identified and

potential impacts are assessed. Necessarily, some of these analyses results will be qualitative,

while others can be quantified. Certain developments might be identified as too speculative for

analysis, such as oil shale-tar sands development in an area that is not actively leasing oil shale.

Analyses are limited because there is incomplete documentation of all past and present impacts

on private and public lands, and limited knowledge of future development because of changing

economic and technical conditions. Illustrative of this process is the expansion of oil and gas

activities associated with CBNG development, or the impact to management considerations with

the USFWS decision that listing the greater sage-grouse under the ESA is warranted but precluded.

Methods and Assumptions

It is neither practical nor required to exhaustively analyze all possible cumulative impacts to all

resources and uses. Instead, the CEQ indicates the cumulative impact analysis should focus

on meaningful impacts. Therefore, the analysis in this document focuses on past, present, and

future actions anticipated to result in substantial impacts to historically important resources. This

analysis is likely predictive of cumulative impacts to other resources not analyzed here. The

resources to be analyzed were developed based on issues identified during public scoping and

through the professional judgment of BLM specialists and Cooperating Agencies.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1277

Particular attention was given to controversial issues or those with a substantial public interest

and the uniqueness of resources affected. However, some issues that might be considered

controversial or with a substantial public interest were not addressed because there are no

environmentally meaningful differences among the alternatives.

Assumptions used in the calculation of impacts from non-BLM actions in the planning area

include:

● Oil and gas activities are based on the Wyoming Reservoir Management Group’s Oil and Gas

RFD for the Wyoming BLM field offices.

● For cumulative impacts associated with non-BLM activities other than oil and gas, there is

no “standard” assumption that can be made by extrapolating impacts associated with BLM

management. The land and mineral ownership patterns in the planning area do not support

attributing the same trends observed or identified for federal lands on state and privately

owned lands.

● Generally, the context and intensity of non-BLM activities are not anticipated to vary by

alternative because these activities do not directly depend on BLM management actions and

allowable uses set forth in the RMP alternatives. However, oil and gas and wind-energy

development will likely depend upon BLM management.

● Cumulative impacts such as soil erosion, INNS spread, and habitat fragmentation are

anticipated to be commensurate with the amount of surface disturbance projected in the

planning area (Table 4.50, “Cumulative Surface Disturbance from BLM and Non-BLM

Reasonable Foreseeable Actions” (p. 1278)).

● Actions by private persons and entities are captured in public documents prepared by federal,

state, and local agencies.

● The assumptions for reclamation are that short-term disturbance will be reclaimed within 2

years. This level of reclamation is based on soil stability and does not suggest a return to

predisturbance conditions. Habitat fragmentation will not be restored in this timeframe;

indeed predisturbance vegetation and habitat condition might not return for decades past the

end of the planning period.

● Additional assumptions are identified under each issue.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts
1278 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 4.50. Cumulative Surface Disturbance from BLM and Non-BLM Reasonable

Foreseeable Actions

Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Total acres short-term

disturbance from

BLM actions

52,591 74,689 160,065 53,894

Total acres reclaimed

from BLM actions

40,152 67,186 99,433 42,441

Total acres long-term

disturbance from

BLM actions

12,439 7,503 60,632 11,453

Total acres short-term

disturbance from

non-BLM actions

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Total acres reclaimed

from non-BLM

actions

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Total acres long-term

disturbance from

non-BLM actions

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Cumulative long-term

acresfrom disturbance

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Source: Appendix T (p. 1641)

BLM Bureau of Land Management

Site-specific actions that have already occurred (past) or are ongoing (present) are not considered

in this cumulative impacts analysis because they are already captured in Chapter 3, Affected

Environment. Only those reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered in this cumulative

impacts analysis.

Quantifiable aspects of the analysis, including impacts to air quality and surface disturbance have

been identified. It is important to note however, that the specificity of the numbers in the table

suggests a degree of accuracy that the data do not support, particularly because historical trends

are used to predict future activity. With the immediate impacts of fluctuation of commodity

prices on development, historical trends might not be representative of the future. For example,

historical trends in locatable mineral development include a 15-year period in which 8 years had

prices of uranium averaging under $15.00 per pound and 1 year with prices close to $100 per

pound. In addition, much of the BLM data were created before modern equipment made exact

measurement possible. Historic surface disturbance is based on permitted activities rather than

the as-built environment. Acknowledging the limitations of the data is not to undermine its utility

for comparative analysis of alternatives, either for assessing cumulative impacts or for direct and

indirect impacts. This is especially true for the RMP, which includes site-specific analysis.

The analysis consists of an examination of the cumulative impacts to certain resources that

are representative of resources in general, in the planning area. Of these issues, the most

detailed analysis is for greater sage-grouse because of the 2010 USFWS finding that listing

under the ESA was warranted but precluded (USFWS 2010). Because the Cumulative Impact

Assessment Area (CIAA) for the greater sage-grouse was determined to be the State of Wyoming,

development across the state is identified. This impacts analysis applies to the other resources,

but is not repeated unless it is uniquely relevant on a site-specific basis. For example, the

Core Area protection for greater sage-grouse will also protect riparian-wetland and vegetative

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1279

resources in the Core Area. The reduced protections for non-Core Area will result in reduced

benefits to riparian-wetland and vegetative resources. Consequently, although only the greater

sage-grouse analysis discusses the different types of development in-depth, the adverse or

beneficial cumulative impacts apply to the other resources. Mule deer are an example of a

resource that would have justified an assessment of cumulative impacts had it not been for the

statewide assessment of greater sage-grouse. While mule deer habitat and herd areas do not

precisely overlap Core Area, they are very similar. There is, of course, a connection between

the two, and indeed among all current wildlife habitat. Crucial habitat for all species exists

where modern development has not happened or had only a minimal impact. Otherwise, the

area would not have been included in Core Area and would have little utility as habitat for big

game, particularly important seasonal habitat. An assessment that identified existing or future

development would adversely impact greater sage-grouse serves to identify adverse impacts to

other wildlife, not just sagebrush obligates.

Table 4.51, “Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions” (p. 1280) identifies reasonably

foreseeable future projects that are considered in this cumulative impacts analysis. The majority

of the projects identified are programmatic and/or strategic in nature; therefore, the exact intensity

or location of anticipated impacts cannot be quantified. Most projects identified in Table 4.51,

“Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions” (p. 1280) are ongoing and provide a

management framework for site-specific actions implemented during the life of the various

projects. Though they are considered in this cumulative impacts analysis, refer to Chapter 3 for a

detailed description of site-specific past and present (i.e., ongoing) actions.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts
1280 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 4.51. Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental ConsequencesCumulative Impacts February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1281

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts
1282 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.10.1. Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from

Management Actions

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area

State of Wyoming

Background

Greater sage-grouse habitat is found throughout most of Wyoming. Approximately 69 percent of

the state has been mapped as historic range for the species, with most of the range still identified

as having suitable habitat. As part of the 2005 12-month finding in response to petitions to list the

greater sage-grouse under ESA, the USFWS identified a list and ranking order of threats to greater

sage-grouse populations and habitat across the species' range. The top five threats identified for

the 2005 12-month finding for the eastern part of the range, which encompasses Wyoming, were

oil and gas development, infrastructure, INNS, wildfire, and grazing (Diebert 2010). The result of

the 2005 finding was that greater sage-grouse was not warranted for listing. The 2005 finding

was remanded in 2007 and the USFWS completed another 12-month finding in 2010. The 2010

finding determined that greater sage-grouse is warranted for listing, but precluded by higher

priority listing actions. During the 2010 finding, the USFWS determined that habitat loss and

fragmentation resulting from wildfire, energy development, urbanization, agricultural conversion,

and infrastructure development are the primary threats to the species. All of these primary threats

occur on lands throughout the state regardless of ownership. As a federal agency, the BLM

is obligated to develop and implement a strategy to avoid having its management activities

contribute to the need to list greater sage-grouse under the ESA (BLM 2008e, BLM 2004a).

In 2008, the Governor of Wyoming issued an Executive Order establishing greater sage-grouse

Core Area throughout the state. Since that time, other Wyoming state agencies have issued

similar Executive Orders detailing management of greater sage-grouse and their habitats. The

most recent Executive Order (2011-5) for greater sage-grouse Core Area protection was issued

in June 2011 (Map 63). The Executive Order resulted from work completed by the Governor’s

SGIT, which was formed to find ways to conserve greater sage-grouse in Wyoming in response to

listing petitions. The SGIT developed a list of stipulations intended to maintain existing suitable

greater sage-grouse habitat by allowing development activities to occur in Core Area in a way that

will not cause a decline in the greater sage-grouse population. The Core Area strategy, which the

BLM has adopted, is designed to protect approximately 83 percent of the statewide population

within approximately 25 percent of the state’s land mass. Greater sage-grouse conservation

strategies also are being implemented outside Core Area, but to a lesser degree. In response to

the Governor’s request for review of the Core Area strategy, the USFWS stated that the strategy

the SGIT outlined would be “a sound framework for a policy by which to conserve greater

sage-grouse in Wyoming.”

Through the issuance of IM WY-2010-012 (BLM 2009j), the Wyoming BLM committed to the

management outlined in the 2008 Executive Order and will utilize energy location densities

and cumulative surface disturbance thresholds in Core Area to protect greater sage-grouse

habitat over the long term (BLM 2009j). Because the Core Area strategy has recently been

developed, there are no BLM land use plans in Wyoming that have formally adopted the Core

Area strategy. Accordingly, greater sage-grouse conservation is implemented on a case-by-case

basis in individual, site-specific NEPA analyses. BLM field offices are in the process of revising

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from

Management Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1283

or amending RMPs to incorporate the Core Area strategy, which is reflected in Alternative D

of this RMP and EIS.

Analysis of Cumulative Impacts

The State of Wyoming was selected for analysis because the approach identified for conservation

of the species is a statewide plan. Greater sage-grouse numbers will be evaluated by the USFWS

for the state as a whole. Consequently, BLM management of public lands in the planning area

will be evaluated not in terms of the number of greater sage-grouse thought to occur locally, but

as a component of the statewide numbers. The BLM is revising or amending RMPs in states that

support greater sage-grouse habitat to incorporate protection measures similar to those developed

in Wyoming. BLM Field Offices are grouped into two geographic regions that are experiencing

similar threats to greater sage-grouse habitat, the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin areas. As

part of the Rocky Mountain area, the cumulative impacts facing greater sage-grouse in Wyoming

are similar to the rest of the region. Analyzing cumulative impacts in Wyoming is representative

of what is occurring throughout the region.

The USFWS emphasized that greater sage-grouse conservation needed to be looked at regionally

and recommended the WAFWA zones. However, the BLM does not have reliable data on that

broad scale for existing and future development for all of Zone 2. A planning effort is currently

underway to collect those data in a systematic way with uniform data standards, definitions,

and analyses tools. At present and for the foreseeable future, the information is incomplete or

unavailable for WAFWA Zone 2. However, this information, while important on a landscape

scale is not directly relevant to the Lander analysis because the conservation measures adopted in

Wyoming are based on a statewide strategy. By addressing impacts to greater sage-grouse by

development across the state, Lander, which is centrally located and not adjoining any other

state, captures a broad-scale area of analysis for which the data are relatively well known and

understood.

Assumptions

This analysis examines current and future actions occurring on non-BLM-administered lands

in the planning area and actions occurring on all lands outside the planning area (including

BLM-administered lands in other field office planning areas) that can affect greater sage-grouse

and their habitats. The following assumptions are made:

● The Core Area strategy and management stipulations will be successful at protecting

approximately 83 percent of the greater sage-grouse population in Wyoming, which will be

sufficient to prevent listing the greater sage-grouse under the ESA.

● Statewide, the BLM will implement the Core Area-based management through new RMPs

or amendments to existing RMPs. While NEPA analysis has not been completed for Core

Area prescriptions, the work of the SGIT strongly supports the likelihood that Core Area

management will be identified as the best method of protecting greater sage-grouse with the

fewest adverse impacts to other uses and resources. While it is possible that in certain areas

a different strategy will be found appropriate or selected through NEPA analysis (including

more stringent prescriptions on development), analysis here assumes that the Core Area

strategy will be implemented including management for the non-Core Area.

● Future Governors of Wyoming will comply with Executive Order 2011-5 and State of

Wyoming lands will continue to be managed in accordance with the Executive Order.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse

from Management Actions
1284 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Locatable mineral mining, primarily for uranium and bentonite, will not be subject to

disturbance densities outlined in the Executive Order or the IM; however, disturbance from

these activities will be used in disturbance calculations for other projects.

● WRIR and the USFS have committed to the Core Area strategy, and lands in and out of the

Core Area will be managed in compliance with the management stipulations applicable

for each area.

● Non-Core Area greater sage-grouse populations will likely decline due to loss and

fragmentation of habitats.

● Private lands with high potential for oil and gas and wind-energy development are likely to be

developed with no specific emphasis on protecting greater sage-grouse habitat.

● Development in non-Core Area that pushes activities near the edge of the Core Area is likely

to adversely impact the functionality of the adjacent Core Area habitat. Surface disturbance

and human activity near this edge could cause degradation of adjacent Core Area habitat and

result in Core Area boundaries to erode over time.

Cumulative impacts to greater sage-grouse will occur primarily from surface-disturbing and other

disruptive activities across Wyoming that result in the loss, degradation, or fragmentation of

habitat or key habitat components, the disturbance/displacement of birds during sensitive periods,

and direct mortality. Impacts to greater sage-grouse from non-BLM actions in the planning area

and from all actions in the remainder of the state are primarily anticipated from the same threats

the USFWS identified for the eastern part of greater sage-grouse range. These threats occurring in

the CIAA are discussed below. Management that results in beneficial and adverse impacts will

vary by land ownership and whether the project is in Core Area or non-Core Area. Table 4.52,

“Percent Composition by Land Ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area and Non-Core

Area” (p. 1285) lists the percentage of land ownership in the planning area and the CIAA.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from

Management Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1285

Table 4.52. Percent Composition by Land Ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area

and Non-Core Area

Total

Bureau of

Land Management

State of

Wyoming

Private

U.S. Forest

Service

Wind River

Indian

Reservation

Other

Planning

Area

100 36.9 4.3 18.9 13.5 23.8 2.6

Core Area

in Planning

Area

40.2 64.3 6.5 17.6 0.02 11.2 0.4

Non-Core

Area in

Planning

Area

59.8 18.5 2.8 19.7 22.6 32.3 4.1

State of

Wyoming

Overall

Ownership

100 27.9 5.8 44 13.8 2.5 5.9

Ownership

of the 24.4

Percent of

Wyoming

Lands in

Core Area

- 50.8 7.2 36.6 0.2 1.9 3.2

Ownership

of the 75.6

percent of

Wyoming

Lands that

are Non-Core

Area

- 20.6 5.3 46.5 18.1 2.6 6.8

Source: BLM 2012a

“Other” lands are primarily under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department

of Defense, and the USFWS and support very limited amounts of habitat for greater sage-grouse.

Because of the small percentage of the state comprising other lands, they are not further discussed.

Private lands are not subject to Core Area or non-Core Area stipulations and it is likely that

protective measures for greater sage-grouse would not be implemented on private lands unless

the private landowner voluntarily agrees to protective measures or enters into a Candidate

Conservation Agreement with Assurances. It is likely that private lands within Core Area

undergoing oil and gas development will be subject to Core Area stipulations, because the

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and Wyoming DEQ are state agencies that must

comply with the Core Area stipulations outlined in the Wyoming Governor's Core Area Executive

Order. Most contiguous private land is in the eastern third of the state, and some of these lands do

not contain sagebrush habitats or have been converted through agricultural practices; therefore,

they do not support greater sage-grouse. On a statewide basis, more acres are in private ownership

than the total acres of lands, outside the national parks, managed by federal agencies including

BLM and USFS. Accordingly, management of private lands has a very real potential to impact

greater sage-grouse. Although only 17.6 percent of the Core Area is privately owned, activities

on private lands surrounding the Core Area could result in adverse impacts to the private land

in the Core Area, particularly from energy development, infrastructure, livestock grazing, and

subdivisions not covered by the State of Wyoming or federal Core Area strategies.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse

from Management Actions
1286 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The western two-thirds of the state has more BLM-administered, WRIR, and USFS lands. As

indicated in the assumptions for analysis, BLM, USFS, WRIR, and state lands will be managed in

accordance with the stipulations identified for both the Core Area and non-Core Area. Greater

sage-grouse are not known to occupy USFS lands except in a portion of the Thunder Basin

National Grasslands, which is why, although 13.8 percent of Wyoming lands are USFS lands, the

USFS manages only 0.2 percent of the Core Area. Nevertheless, USFS management is consistent

with the Core Area strategy.

In the Core Area, stipulations on BLM, State of Wyoming, WRIR, and USFS lands will limit the

number of projects and amount of surface disturbance allowed per square mile for discretionary

actions. Although the details of management are likely to vary under each jurisdictional boundary,

in general, the plans will not authorize surface disturbance within a 0.6-mile buffer around

active greater sage-grouse leks. In addition, a seasonal protection stipulation will be applied

to surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable greater sage-grouse habitat during

the breeding/nesting period, generally mid March through the end of June. These limitations

should provide adequate protection to maintain habitat to support the current number of greater

sage-grouse found within the Core Area boundaries. However, see below for a discussion of

the issues associated with locatable minerals.

Approximately 75 percent of the state is identified as non-Core Area, which supports just 17

percent of the known greater sage-grouse population. Non-Core Area is comprised of lands that

historically did not support greater sage-grouse, have isolated or very small scattered leks, or are

undergoing or are planned to undergo intensive development and/or urbanization.

Non-Core Area protections are much less restrictive (i.e., a 1⁄4-mile buffer around leks versus the

0.6-mile buffer in Core Area). Therefore, it is likely that additional greater sage-grouse habitat

loss and fragmentation will occur on BLM, State of Wyoming, WRIR, and USFS lands in areas

undergoing development activities. In addition to the smaller lek and nesting buffers, there

are no limits on the number of projects or the amount of surface disturbance that can occur in

non-Core Area. It is expected that habitat losses in non-Core Area will accrue regardless of land

ownership and will increase as disturbance caps are reached in the Core Area. It is not possible to

quantify this effect as the Core Area strategy provides an incentive for successful reclamation

of disturbance so as to reduce the area considered disturbed.

In summary, the most beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse are in Core Area, which have

most of the land managed by agencies using Core Area stipulations (i.e., the BLM, the State of

Wyoming, the WRIR, and the USFS). The most adverse situation for greater sage-grouse is to

be in the non-Core Area or in the Core Area with substantial private land not subject to the

stipulations. Not coincidentally, the most concentrated areas of Core Area are in the parts of

Wyoming with the most concentrated federal lands. Map 136 shows land ownership across the

state and identifies the greater sage-grouse Core Area.

Stipulations for Core Area and non-Core Area will apply primarily to oil and gas and

energy-related realty actions, but could pertain to range improvement projects (e.g., vegetation

treatments, water developments, fences) depending on the size and scope of the project. Surface

disturbance related to locatable mineral mining, primarily for uranium and bentonite, and non

oil and gas mineral leasables will not be subject to the same stipulations; however, disturbance

from all activities will be used in calculations when assessing whether disturbance caps have

been reached.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from

Management Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1287

Excluding high development or high mineral potential areas from the Core Area is a recognition

that highly disturbed areas are generally not suitable as greater sage-grouse habitat. However,

many of these areas were suitable habitat before disturbance, and therefore can be found directly

adjacent to the Core Area. Because most of the heavily developed areas are non-Core Area, less

restrictive stipulations apply. Therefore, it is likely that the intense development could have a

spill-over effect to the Core Area, with potential erosion of habitat adjacent to development. This

potential is discussed below for each type of development.

The BLM applies Core Area surface disturbance limitations only to federal surface, not to

federal minerals for split-estate. While this has little impact in the planning area because of the

limited amount of split-estate in Core Area (417,287 acres, generally in the eastern portion of

the planning area), on a statewide basis there are extensive private surface lands with federal

minerals in the Core Area; see Map 137. In the Buffalo and Newcastle planning areas for

example, almost all mineral ownership in the Core Area is either private or split-estate where

the Core Area stipulations will not be applied. Similarly, in the Pinedale planning area, some of

the Core Area is bisected by private surface. As discussed below, the Core Area is vulnerable to

impacts from adjacent oil or gas development.

The greatest contributor to the decline in greater sage-grouse populations is habitat fragmentation.

Small decreases in lek connectivity result in large increases in probability of lek abandonment

(Connelly et al. 2000) The greater the extent to which habitat is fragmented and connectivity lost,

the greater the adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse.

Oil and Gas

Currently, oil and gas exploration and development is taking place throughout much of the state,

with the most intensive development in the Powder River Basin, Pinedale, and Red Desert

areas. The Powder River Basin area has less Core Area and a higher percentage of private

land, whereas the Pinedale and Red Desert areas have more Core Area and a higher percentage

of BLM-administered lands. In the case of the Powder River Basin, most greater sage-grouse

habitat occurs in non-Core Area and therefore will likely receive relatively limited protection due

to the large amount of private land and the high value of oil and gas production. On the limited

amount of federal lands where stipulations apply, greater sage-grouse will receive the lower level

of protection applied to non-Core Area, which will likely lead to substantial adverse impacts to

greater sage-grouse because only 1⁄4 mile around leks will be closed to surface disturbance.

Oil and gas development across the state is expected to remain stable or increase over the next

20 years with the majority of activity currently occurring, or predicted to occur, in areas open

to leasing having very high, high, and moderate potential for future development of oil or gas

reserves. As technology increases and new reserves are discovered, development will occur

both inside and outside the Core Area. For example, the BLM recently authorized increased

development in the Salt Creek Field in Casper utilizing CO2 enhanced recovery (BLM 2007e)

which is a technology being used in old oil fields.

As surface disturbance caps are reached in the Core Area, it is expected that development in

non-Core Area will increase, at least until reclamation levels are achieved in Core Area and new

surface disturbance is possible. While reclamation and mitigation measures will reduce short-term

impacts from surface disturbance, permanent facilities will result in long-term disturbance.

Development on BLM, State of Wyoming, WRIR, and USFS lands in Core Area (approximately

50 percent of the total acres of statewide Core Area) will be subject to the management stipulations

outlined in the Core Area strategy; therefore limits will be placed on the amount of habitat loss and

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse

from Management Actions
1288 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

fragmentation that can occur. The Core Area strategy should prevent large losses of habitat except

in areas currently leased and unitized that are undergoing substantial development, such as in the

Rawlins and Pinedale planning areas. In this situation, it will be difficult to keep the total surface

disturbance under the 5 percent threshold identified in the Executive Order and IM. Development

on private lands (approximately 37 percent of total statewide Core Area) will not be subject to

the same stipulations, and habitat loss and fragmentation will likely increase as opportunities

for development on BLM and State of Wyoming lands become more limited. An unintended

consequence of federal limitations could be to push more development onto private lands.

Oil and gas exploration and development on BLM, State of Wyoming, WRIR, and USFS lands

in non-Core Area will not be subject to the location density and total disturbance caps. Areas

currently undergoing intensive development in the state are primarily outside the Core Area, and

it is anticipated that the high level of development will continue in existing fields. Increased

levels of noise and human activity, combined with smaller lek buffers and increased habitat

fragmentation from surface disturbance, will likely render these areas avoided or unusable by

greater sage-grouse.

Erosion of the Core Area edges could occur where Core Area adjoins or includes existing or

anticipated oil and gas operations, such as south of Highland in the Casper planning area, the

Wamsutter/Creston Junction area of the Rawlins planning area, the Hiawatha area, and the

Wyoming Range. At particular risk is the Core Area separated by the Pinedale Anticline, which

will experience intensive oil and gas development and associated infrastructure during the next

15 years (approximately 4,400 new wells) with a 40-year productive life (BLM 2008f). The

Core Area in the northern portion of the Wyoming Range could be subject to pressure from oil

and gas reserves with high potential for development northwest of Cora. There also is high

potential for development south of Pinedale and east of Big Piney that is adjacent to Core

Area. The Jonah Field is partially in the Core Area, as is the Hiawatha and Wamsutter/Creston

Junction developments. The BLM is completing an EIS for an additional 1,600 wells in the Moxa

Arch project, which will be an addition to the approximately 1,450 wells already developed. A

small portion of the project area lies within the Core Area and the rest of the project area falls

in non-Core Area adjacent to the Core Area.

In addition to the disturbance associated with actual oil and gas operations, infrastructure

requirements increase substantially. For example, the Pinedale Field Office recently approved

an ROW for 55 miles of 230-kilovolt transmission line and two substations to support oil and

gas activities in the Pinedale Anticline (BLM 2009k). While some of the surface disturbance

associated with oil and gas development are included in the oil and gas RFDs, additional

disturbances such as new transmission lines could be necessary to fully develop and transport

these resources.

Non-Oil and Gas Leasable Minerals

Coal resources tend to be present in localized regions in Wyoming. Major coal resources are

present outside the planning area near Gillette/Wright, Hanna, and east of Rock Springs. As with

high-potential oil and gas areas, places with high potential for coal have primarily been omitted

from the Core Area. However, coal leases are currently in place close to the Core Area in the

Buffalo and Newcastle planning areas and south of the Core Area to the northwest of Rock

Springs. The coal leases near Hanna in the Rawlins planning area are in the Core Area but the IM

regarding caps on surface disturbance do not apply to coal leasing. (It is not known at this time

how the Rawlins RMP will be amended regarding greater sage-grouse management, and whether

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from

Management Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1289

the IM will be followed or a more restrictive management applied that includes limitations

associated with surface disturbance from coal mining.) Coal development areas must be fully

reclaimed following mining extraction, but the intensive nature of the development activity over

a considerable period results in a long-term impact and would likely result in adverse impacts

to adjacent and nearby Core Area habitats.

Phosphate is a leasable mineral that could adversely impact greater sage-grouse habitats in

Wyoming. While phosphate resources occur throughout the State of Wyoming, generally, they

are not present in commercially viable quantities. Currently, there is no phosphate leasing or

production from federal surface or mineral estate in the CIAA (BLM 2010f). In the case of the

planning area, phosphate potential has been identified, but leases have not been reviewed pending

the revised RMP decisions. Future demand for phosphate minerals will likely increase over time in

other parts of Wyoming; however, this development is too speculative to consider as a cumulative

impact. Under the Executive Order and IM, phosphate leasing, a BLM discretionary activity, is

subject to the surface disturbance limitations in the Core Area discussed above for oil and gas.

Trona is another leasable mineral present in the CIAA. While not present in the planning area, it is

present in the southwest part of the state, principally overlapping the Kemmerer and Rock Springs

planning areas, with an additional small location inside Core Area near Rock Springs. Historic

mining activity and infrastructure has affected the availability of suitable greater sage-grouse

habitat, so extensive resources are in non-Core Area. An additional area of trona is identified as

occurring in “islands” of disconnected Core Area. The IM does not apply to trona development,

so it is possible that additional mining could adversely impact or erode the surrounding Core

Area. The sections of Core Area with trona resources comprises a small part of the state’s overall

Core Area; because trona resources are so concentrated within a portion of the southwest part of

the state, mining is not likely to impact the remaining Core Area.

Locatable Minerals

The BLM grants locatable mineral authorizations under the 1872 General Mining Law unless

unnecessary or undue degradation would result. So long as the greater sage-grouse is a candidate

species and not listed under the ESA, locatable mineral development such as uranium and

bentonite mines, will be authorized where they would not cause unnecessary or undue degradation

to the greater sage-grouse or their habitat. As a consequence, the Core Area strategy has little

application except to the extent that the strategy is designed to avoid listing greater sage-grouse,

which would trigger more stringent management of locatable minerals. Locatable mineral activity

is subject to regulation by the Land Quality Division of the Wyoming DEQ. Wyoming has added

stipulations for mining activities that could limit locatable mineral mining in Core Area, but the

impact of these stipulations is not clear because there is no history to suggest how stipulations

would be applied when the State of Wyoming processes an application in Core Area. If the State

of Wyoming limits surface disturbance, it is likely that mines would be precluded because surface

disturbance created from mining activities would meet or exceed the disturbance threshold of

5 percent.

Major uranium resources in the planning area are found in the Gas Hills and Green Mountain

areas, and outside the planning area near Midwest and directly south of the planning area

boundary in the Great Divide Basin. Generally, these areas are in non-Core Area, reflecting the

decades of mining and AML reclamation that has resulted in habitats unsuitable for greater

sage-grouse. The Green Mountain area and the uranium deposits near the southern boundary of

the planning area are in Core Area. Just as in the case of oil and gas, there is extensive uranium

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse

from Management Actions
1290 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

potential close to Core Area, which presents the potential of eroding the outer boundaries of the

Core Area. This is particularly true in the Casper, Buffalo, and Rawlins, planning areas where

existing claims and identified projects are in or adjacent to the Core Area. The Lander Field

Office is processing an EIS for a uranium mine adjacent to the Core Area that overlaps the Casper

planning area, and the Rawlins Field Office is processing a uranium mine application along its

boundary with the Lander planning area. In addition to the three uranium recovery facilities in

the planning area, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is processing 11 active license

applications and two inactive applications in Wyoming (Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010).

If these proposed mines are in or near the Core Area, they would adversely impact to greater

sage-grouse habitat and could cause erosion of Core Area boundaries.

Wyoming has extensive bentonite resources, some of which overlap or are adjacent to the Core

Area. The loss of sagebrush habitat associated with bentonite in the Bighorn Basin has been

intensive on a local scale and contributed to altering 12 percent of the sagebrush habitat in the

Bighorn Basin (BLM 2009b). Restoration efforts to return the mine site to predisturbance

vegetative conditions have been mostly unsuccessful. The BLM anticipates an additional 34

square miles to be disturbed by bentonite mining through 2024 in addition to other oil and gas and

energy transmission disturbances (BLM 2009b).

Bentonite resources in the planning area are located in the Core Area, except for an operating

bentonite mine in the Gas Hills area that is just outside the Core Area. Active bentonite mines do

not support suitable greater sage-grouse habitat; therefore, mines in the CIAA, specifically in

the Worland and Cody planning areas, are in non-Core Area. However, in those two planning

areas, almost all of the bentonite claims are adjacent to Core Area, which could increase the

potential to impact Core Area habitat and erode the Core Area edges to the east of these mines. In

the Casper and Buffalo planning areas, most of the bentonite claims are adjacent to or within the

Core Area. Just as with uranium, it is not clear the extent to which the State of Wyoming greater

sage-grouse protections will limit mines in Core Area, but the 1872 General Mining Law and

subsequent BLM management will not limit the development of bentonite resources unless

unnecessary or undue degradation would result.

Mineral Material Disposals

Mineral material disposals, often referred to as “salable minerals,” are a BLM discretionary action.

Mineral material sources are available throughout the state and can occur on all ownership lands.

It is expected that mineral material disposals in suitable habitat on lands managed by the BLM,

State of Wyoming, the WRIR, and the USFS would likely not be allowed in new areas within or

adjacent to suitable greater sage-grouse habitat in Core Area even if not specifically closed by the

agency's management plan. On privately owned mineral estate, disposals could occur in the Core

Area and demand for private sites could increase if federal and state lands are closed to disposals.

While some mineral material disposals are subject to the State of Wyoming Land Quality

Department permitting process, smaller disposals from community pits and common use areas are

not, and the demand for disposals could increase to meet the anticipated increase for materials for

oil and gas or other mineral developments, road construction, and urban development.

Infrastructure

Various forms of infrastructure, including powerlines, communications towers, wind turbines,

fences, and roads, occur across the CIAA landscape regardless of land ownership. These types

of facilities can cause direct habitat loss from surface disturbance and functional habitat loss

from behavioral avoidance by greater sage-grouse. As stated in the USFWS 12-month finding,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from

Management Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1291

fragmentation of habitats is cited as a primary cause of greater sage-grouse population declines

because the species requires large expanses of contiguous sagebrush. Greater sage-grouse tend

to avoid areas with tall structures (e.g., powerlines, communications towers, and wind turbines)

due to the increased opportunity for predation by raptors. Therefore, aboveground facilities

can make some habitat unsuitable for greater sage-grouse. There has been a national push to

develop more wind energy and the associated transmission lines to move the energy outside

the State of Wyoming. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the Secretaries of Agriculture,

Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate energy corridors for oil, gas, and

hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution facilities. The Westwide Corridor

identifies approximately 438 miles of corridor through Wyoming (DOE and BLM 2008), of

which approximately 205 miles cross the Core Area. The BLM is also evaluating the route for

the Gateway West Transmission Line Project from Glenrock south to the Interstate 80 corridor

east of Hanna and then west along the Interstate 80 corridor out of the State of Wyoming. The

proposed route would cross approximately 160 miles of the Core Area. These large projects could

adversely impact greater sage-grouse up to 1 mile on either side of the transmission lines.

It is anticipated that areas having Categories 5, 6, and 7 wind potential outside USFS wilderness

and BLM WSA areas have the greatest likelihood of being developed. Most of these areas are

primarily in the eastern part of the state and along the Interstate 80 corridor. Approximately 18

percent of the lands identified as having high potential for wind energy in the state occur in

the Core Area.

The Executive Order states that wind-energy development should be avoided in greater

sage-grouse Core Area; therefore, it is unlikely that much development will occur in the Core

Area because state approval would be required for most projects. Wind-energy developments

with 30 or more turbines require approval from the Wyoming DEQ Industrial Siting Council,

and smaller projects are not typically commercially viable. It is possible that wind-energy

projects of fewer than 30 turbines could occur in the Core Area if the project is located only

on private lands. It is not possible to predict how much wind-energy development will occur

in the CIAA because there is currently a lack of available transmission lines needed to move

the power. Lands with high potential for wind energy outside Core Area are the most likely to

be developed, providing transmission lines needed to carry the energy are in place or can be

built. Development on BLM, State of Wyoming, USFS, and WRIR lands will be subject to lek

avoidance and seasonal protections for nesting habitat, but these same protections are not likely to

be implemented on private lands unless specifically required by the landowner. Even with these

protections, large-scale wind-energy development would adversely impact the suitability of

adjacent and connectivity lands for greater sage-grouse unless they are developed on lands far

away from the Core Area.

Wind-energy development in the southern and eastern parts of Wyoming are the most likely to

be developed, primarily on private surface. Less development is expected on public lands. As

of the beginning of fiscal year 2010, BLM Wyoming had approved only one industrial wind

project (in 1997) and has applications for eight others, the largest of which is 8,767 acres (BLM

2010g). Since 2010, the BLM has completed the Final EIS for the Choke Cherry/Sierra Madre

wind-energy development in the southern part of Wyoming. None of these projects are in the

Core Area, although all are close.

Underground pipelines used to gather and transport oil or gas will increase in areas experiencing

intensive development, and are expected to cause only short-term habitat loss provided the

disturbance is successfully reclaimed. Pipeline disturbances can be difficult to reclaim,

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse

from Management Actions
1292 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

particularly in the very arid parts of the state, and habitat loss could be long-term if suitable

vegetation for greater sage-grouse is not reestablished. Powerlines will likely increase in areas

undergoing energy development and in areas near cities and towns experiencing rural subdivision.

Powerlines constructed in utility corridors will minimize the impact of overhead structures being

placed in undisturbed greater sage-grouse habitat. Corridors are more likely to be used in the

western two-thirds of the state because the BLM and the USFS generally designate corridors on

their lands, whereas the establishment and use of corridors is less likely in the eastern third of the

state where there is more private land. This policy of locating corridors on public lands facilitates

the granting of ROWs, but results in inherent conflicts with the Core Area because of the linear

nature of the facilities and the costs associated with routing the infrastructure around leks. The

Interstate 80 corridor across the southern end of the state is the preferred location for major

infrastructure, but north-south facilities must cross the Core Area at some point.

Extensive transmission line development is likely, and several projects have been proposed,

including the Gateway West and Gateway South projects. Increases in demand for renewable

energy from outside Wyoming is likely to result in an increase in demand for cross-state

transmission corridors. Much of the transmission network is likely to follow existing disturbances,

such as Interstate 80. While the likely location of transmission lines are not in Core Area because

that habitat has already been lost, Core Area is very near it, especially near Rawlins.

Pipelines and powerlines and other types of infrastructure that go through the Core Area and

non-Core Area can facilitate the transport of INNS across the landscape, which can adversely

impact greater sage-grouse habitat. Pipelines and powerlines can originate, pass through, and

terminate on lands having one ownership, but due to the state’s scattered land pattern, it is much

more likely these projects will cross through lands having different ownership. Activities on

private lands could receive the same greater sage-grouse protections as BLM, state, WRIR,

and USFS lands because landowners often ask for the same mitigation measures as used on

adjoining lands.

Pipeline capacity will likely increase as oil and gas development continues. All RFDs for land use

plans currently under revision in Wyoming (Buffalo, Bighorn Basin, and Lander) and recently

completed revisions (Pinedale, Casper, Kemmerer, and Rawlins Field Offices) project additional

demand for pipelines. The BLM has recently approved a pipeline originating in Opal and heading

west for 678 miles (BLM 2010h) and the Overland Pass Pipeline from Opal and heading east

through Lincoln, Sweetwater, Albany, and Laramie counties into Colorado (BLM 2007f). Parts of

both of these lines cross the Core Area and will affect greater sage-grouse habitat adjacent to the

lines. Additional pipelines are expected throughout the CIAA to gather and transport product,

including moving CO2 to facilitate enhanced oil recovery in existing oil fields.

New roads and trails are developed or established in greater sage-grouse habitats across the state,

both inside and outside the Core Area, from authorized activities and recreational OHV use.

Roads and trails contribute to the overall habitat loss and fragmentation occurring in the CIAA

and they can result in greater sage-grouse mortality from vehicle collisions, create barriers to

movement, facilitate the spread of INNS, and provide opportunities for predation. High-density

road development is occurring in intensively developed oil and gas fields, which are primarily

located in non-Core Area. Development of new roads will be associated with new energy

development areas, mining activities, and ROWs and will occur across the state regardless of land

ownership. Developed roads in the Core Area on BLM, State of Wyoming, WRIR, and USFS

lands will be subject to the 5-percent disturbance cap. Unauthorized roads and trails established

by recreational OHV use are expected to increase in greater sage-grouse habitat during the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from

Management Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1293

planning period, particularly on BLM-administered lands near communities. Due to the limited

availability of BLM Rangers, enforcement of travel management decisions on BLM-administered

lands is difficult and the proliferation of new road and trails that can fragment greater sage-grouse

habitat is expected to continue. Private and State of Wyoming lands are expected to have less

unauthorized road and trail establishment due to more controlled access.

Fences are present on most ownership lands across the State of Wyoming and are used primarily

to delineate property boundaries and to manage livestock. Fences can cause greater sage-grouse

to avoid adjacent habitats because raptors can use them as hunting perches and they can create

predator corridors and contribute to overall habitat fragmentation. In addition, fences can cause

direct greater sage-grouse mortality through bird collision with fence wires. Not all fences present

the same mortality risk to greater sage-grouse because the risk depends on the style of fence,

landscape topography, and spatial proximity to seasonal habitats. It is expected that the level

of fencing will increase on private land and in areas near communities as more lands become

subdivided. Fencing on BLM, State of Wyoming, WRIR, and USFS lands is likely to remain

steady or increase in response to energy development and grazing management concerns.

Invasive Species

INNS spread as areas are disturbed and would adversely impact greater sage-grouse habitat

by reducing or eliminating native vegetation required for food and cover. INNS in the CIAA

consist of annual grasses (primarily cheatgrass) or other invasive plants, but also could be native

conifers that encroach sagebrush communities. The potential for the establishment or spread of

INNS increases with each surface-disturbing activity, regardless of land ownership. Because

development on private lands is not required to implement INNS prevention strategies, the

potential for adverse impacts from development is greater on private lands. In areas experiencing

intensive development or large-scale disturbance, the potential is even greater. The limitations

on the amount of surface disturbance allowed per square mile on BLM, state, WRIR, and USFS

lands in the Core Area will reduce the risk of INNS getting established in new areas over the

risk in non-Core Area. Because most of the state is in non-Core Area, the risk of INNS getting

established and adversely affecting non-Core Area habitat will increase on all lands as there will

be no surface disturbance limits. INNS that spread from non-Core Area to Core Area will result

in adverse impacts to Core Area habitat quality. Similar as described for energy development

and infrastructure, surface disturbance on private lands inside or outside the Core Area will not

be limited unless required by the land owner.

In many parts of the State of Wyoming, juniper is expanding within its current range and moving

into sagebrush habitats regardless of land ownership. Pinyon-juniper woodlands have expanded

almost tenfold in the intermountain west since European settlement in greater sage-grouse range

due to the reduced role of fire, the introduction of livestock grazing, increases in global CO2

concentrations, climate change, and natural recovery from past disturbances (USFWS 2010).

Juniper can eventually replace sagebrush and reduce the availability of greater sage-grouse

habitat; female greater sage-grouse are known to avoid conifers in winter (Doherty et al. 2008).

Conservation actions to control or eradicate juniper, including mechanical, herbicide, cutting,

and burning treatments, are occurring in the CIAA; however, treatments are not keeping pace

with the rate of juniper encroachment in most areas. In most areas of the Wyoming, treatments

by Firewise Communities, the WGFD, and other groups or individuals are conducted on fewer

acres of private, WRIR, and state lands primarily due to the costs of the treatments. Including

the projects completed on BLM and USFS lands, juniper encroachment outpaces treatment, and

treatments have not been determined to reestablish greater sage-grouse habitat (USFWS 2010).

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse

from Management Actions
1294 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Vegetation mapping is not sufficiently complete to identify how much the Core Area is threatened

with juniper encroachment. Fire suppression in the Core Area is emphasized in the Executive

Order, which makes it unlikely that fire will be heavily utilized for vegetative treatments, making

mechanical treatments the most likely method to address juniper encroachment.

Wildfire

Wildfire that burns sagebrush ecosystems in the CIAA will result in the long-term loss of

sagebrush, affect the availability of insects, and increase the risk of INNS establishing in greater

sage-grouse habitats. Wildfire will likely occur across Wyoming, regardless of land ownership.

Large wildfires in Wyoming historically have occurred in forests or on lands with a substantial

amount of timber that do not provide habitat for greater sage-grouse (see Map 18 of the Summary

of the Analysis of the Management Situation [BLM 2009a] showing fire locations over the last 20

years); however, small wildfires are common in sagebrush communities. Small wildfires will

result in localized impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat, whereas large wildfires could result in

impacts to greater sage-grouse populations (USFWS 2010). It is impossible to predict the level of

impacts that wildfire will contribute to overall habitat loss in the future, but efforts to suppress fire

in greater sage-grouse habitat can result in beneficial impacts. The BLM has issued a policy to

make greater sage-grouse habitats, particularly in the Core Area, a priority for fire suppression,

regardless of land ownership. It is anticipated that suppression of wildfires on all lands in the Core

Area in the CIAA, regardless of ownership, will be a priority. Outside the Core Area, priority

will likely be given to areas with energy-development infrastructure and near homesites, which

typically provide little suitable habitat for greater sage-grouse.

Climate change and the spread of INNS are increasing the likelihood of adverse impacts to

greater sage-grouse populations from wildfire. In the Great Divide Basin, 27 percent of greater

sage-grouse habitat has burned since 1980. Fire within 33.6 miles of a lek is one of two primary

factors in predicting loss of a lek (USFWS 2010). Sagebrush recovery can take decades, while

INNS can take over a site almost immediately following fire. Fire return intervals for areas

infested with INNS are far more frequent, sometimes as short as 2 or 3 years, which would

prevent burned areas from returning to suitable greater sage-grouse habitat.

Livestock Grazing

Domestic livestock grazing occurs on most lands in the Wyoming that support greater sage-grouse

habitat, including federally managed lands. Heavy grazing use that reduces vegetative cover

needed for nest concealment, alters composition of the plant community, and increases

opportunities for predators can occur on all ownership lands in the Core Area and non-Core Area.

High utilization levels typically occur in riparian-wetland habitats and near water development

and mineral supplement areas, which can degrade brood-rearing and nesting habitats.

Livestock management typically involves the use of fencing and water developments (wells,

pipelines, reservoirs, and spring developments) that can result in the loss, degradation, and

fragmentation of greater sage-grouse habitat. Fences and water developments are utilized on all

ownership lands in the CIAA. The number of future projects constructed in the Core Area could

be reduced based on habitat-disturbance calculations. If projects are denied on BLM, State of

Wyoming, WRIR, and USFS lands due to disturbance caps, it is assumed that the number of

projects will increase on private lands and outside the Core Area to compensate. One of the

historic contributors to the loss of habitat is the conversion of sagebrush habitat to agricultural

lands. Overall, the contribution of impacts from livestock grazing by alternative would not vary

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from

Management Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1295

substantially because there is little difference in the amount of land open and closed to grazing

among the alternatives.

Summary

Central Wyoming has the densest concentration of greater sage-grouse in the United States

and has been identified by the USFWS as of the highest priority for persistence of the species

(USFWS 2010). A substantial part of the Core Area outside the planning area is pressured by

continued energy and ROW development, urbanization, fire, and livestock grazing. The level of

cumulative impacts from the threats described above is predicated on the fact that management of

the Core Area is protective enough to maintain habitat to support 83 percent of the current greater

sage-grouse population in the state. Reducing the level of adverse impacts in areas supporting

the largest number of greater sage-grouse also depends on lands continuing to be managed

using the Core Area strategy. The contribution of cumulative impacts to greater sage-grouse in

the CIAA is anticipated to be least under Alternative B, which provides the most measures to

minimize habitat loss and fragmentation and closes the most habitat to surface disturbance related

to oil and gas development and infrastructure in the planning area, followed by alternatives D,

A, and C. The greatest contribution of cumulative adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse in the

CIAA is expected under Alternative C, which allows the greatest level of surface disturbance and

most development and resource uses in the planning area with the least amount of restrictions.

Alternative D incorporates the Core Area strategy, and therefore will be consistent with

management of BLM-administered, State of Wyoming, WRIR, and USFS lands across the CIAA.

4.10.2. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality with regard to Public

Health and Welfare from Management Actions

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area

The planning area and designated CAA Class I areas within 100 kilometers (approximately 60

miles) of the planning area.

Analysis of Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts to air quality were analyzed for each alternative by assessing cumulative

emissions in the planning area over the life of the plan. Cumulative emissions were assessed in

two ways – by comparing to statewide emissions from 2008 and by “growing” estimated BLM

emissions for future years. The Wyoming DEQ compiles a statewide emissions inventory of air

pollutants every 3 years as required by the EPA. The most recent statewide emissions inventory

available was compiled for 42 different source categories for 2008 actual emissions. The 2008

statewide emissions data were obtained from the EPA National Emissions Inventory (EPA 2008).

Table 4.53, “BLM Contribution to Cumulative Annual Statewide Emissions” (p. 1296) shows the

estimated emissions for BLM actions and activities in the planning area compared to Wyoming

statewide emissions. The estimated emissions for BLM actions and activities were then scaled up

to reflect potential increases in non-BLM actions in the planning area. Table 4.54, “Cumulative

Annual Emissions Summary for BLM and Non-BLM Activities in the Lander Planning

Area” (p. 1298) shows estimated emissions under each alternative for projected BLM actions,

projected non‐BLM actions, and the cumulative total of these actions. Emissions estimates from

non‐BLM oil and gas activities were calculated using data on existing and projected oil and gas

wells in the planning area from the Lander Field Office RFD scenario for oil and gas (BLM

2009c). The projected numbers of wells and gas production rates estimated for private and fee

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality with regard to

Public Health and Welfare from Management Actions
1296 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

land (i.e., non‐federal) in the planning area for 2018 and 2027 were used to calculate cumulative

emissions from oil and gas activities. For cumulative impacts associated with non-oil and gas

mineral development (i.e., bentonite, uranium, and gold), it was assumed that 100 percent of these

actions would occur on federal mineral estate (i.e., no additional emissions from non-BLM

actions) and the cumulative emissions have been included in the projected emissions estimates for

2018 and 2027. The analysis of non‐BLM mineral materials disposal activities is based on the

proportional mineral estate ownership in the planning area (41 percent federal and 59 percent

non‐federal). The calculation of cumulative impacts for air quality from non‐mineral, non‐BLM

activities is based on the proportion of surface ownership in the planning area (38 percent

BLM-administered and 62 percent non BLM‐administered).

Table 4.53. BLM Contribution to Cumulative Annual Statewide Emissions

Pollutant

BLM Estimated

Emissions in

the Lander

Planning Area

(tons per year)

2008 Wyoming

Statewide

Emissions

(tons per year)

Total

(tons per year)

Percent

Contribution of

BLM Lander

Planning Area

Emissions

to Statewide

Emissions

Base Year - 2008

PM10 761 393,864 394,625 0.19

PM2.5 135 57,622 57,757 0.23

NOx 678 190,914 191,592 0.35

SO2 11 109,304 109,315 0.01

CO 1,138 274,997 276,135 0.41

VOCs 1,726 155,864 157,590 1.10

Alternative A - 2018

PM10 2,195 393,864 369,059 0.55

PM2.5 371 57,622 57,993 0.64

NOx 1,829 190,914 192,743 0.95

SO2 23 109,304 109,327 0.02

CO 1,734 274,997 276,731 0.63

VOCs 4,737 155,864 160,601 2.95

Alternative B - 2018

PM10 1,760 393,864 395,624 0.44

PM2.5 359 57,622 57,981 0.62

NOx 1,420 190,914 192,334 0.74

SO2 24 109,304 109,328 0.02

CO 2,077 274,997 277,074 0.75

VOCs 4,019 155,864 159,883 2.51

Alternative C - 2018

PM10 2,887 393,864 396,751 0.73

PM2.5 443 57,622 58,065 0.76

NOx 1,873 190,914 192,787 0.97

SO2 25 109,304 109,329 0.02

CO 1,758 274,997 276,755 0.64

VOCs 4,754 155,864 160,618 2.96

Alternative D - 2018

PM10 2,122 393,864 395,986 0.54

PM2.5 373 57,622 57,995 0.64

NOx 1,747 190,914 192,661 0.91

SO2 24 109,304 109,328 0.02

CO 1,872 274,997 276,869 0.68

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality with regard to

Public Health and Welfare from Management Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1297

Pollutant

BLM Estimated

Emissions in

the Lander

Planning Area

(tons per year)

2008 Wyoming

Statewide

Emissions

(tons per year)

Total

(tons per year)

Percent

Contribution of

BLM Lander

Planning Area

Emissions

to Statewide

Emissions

VOCs 4,592 155,864 160,456 2.86

Source: EPA 2008

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CO carbon monoxide

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality with regard to

Public Health and Welfare from Management Actions
1298 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 4.54. Cumulative Annual Emissions Summary for BLM and Non-BLM Activities in the Lander Planning Area

PM10

(Tons per Year)

PM2.5

(Tons per Year)

NOx

(Tons per Year)

SO2

(Tons per Year)

CO

(Tons per Year)

VOCs

(Tons per Year)

HAPs

(Tons per Year)

Scenario

BLM NonBLM Total BLM NonBLM Total BLM NonBLM Total BLM NonBLM Total BLM NonBLM Total BLM NonBLM Total BLM NonBLM Total

Base Year – 2008

Base Year 761 810 1,572 135 151 286 678 496 1,174 11 12 23 1,138 1,583 2,720 1,726 1,062 2,788 270 152 422

Forecast Year – 2018

Alternative A 2,195 1,210 3,405 371 202 573 1,829 887 2,716 23 16 39 1,734 1,855 3,589 4,737 2,373 7,110 786 383 1,168

Alternative B 1,760 1,345 3,106 359 284 642 1,420 711 2,132 24 22 47 2,077 2,657 4,733 4,019 2,071 6,091 654 325 979

Alternative C 2,887 2,329 5,217 443 320 763 1,873 953 2,826 25 19 44 1,758 1,891 3,649 4,754 2,386 7,140 788 384 1,173

Alternative D 2,122 1,369 3,491 373 238 611 1,747 857 2,604 24 18 42 1,872 2,134 4,005 4,592 2,316 6,908 759 371 1,130

Forecast Year – 2027

Alternative A 2,047 1,160 3,208 344 189 533 1,528 702 2,230 22 15 37 1,583 1,760 3,343 3,722 1,863 5,585 616 300 915

Alternative B 1,621 1,290 2,911 335 271 606 1,173 552 1,725 23 22 45 1,953 2,574 4,527 3,145 1,627 4,772 509 253 762

Alternative C 2,737 2,278 5,015 416 304 720 1,546 725 2,271 24 18 41 1,596 1,778 3,374 3,734 1,874 5,608 617 301 919

Alternative D 1,976 1,318 3,294 347 225 572 1,458 675 2,133 23 17 40 1,727 2,040 3,767 3,606 1,820 5,426 594 291 885

Source: Appendix U (p. 1651)

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CO carbon monoxide

HAPs hazardous air pollutants

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

SO2 sulfur dioxide

VOC volatile organic compound

Chapter

4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality with regard to

Public Health and

Welfare from Management Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1299

BLM and non-BLM reasonably foreseeable actions are anticipated to increase emissions in the

planning area over the planning period. For the planning area, cumulative air quality impacts

(as measured against national and state ambient air quality standards) are anticipated to be

roughly the same on BLM and non-BLM-administered lands because it is assumed that the

density of activities are the same in both areas. Because of proposed development restrictions on

BLM-administered lands, adverse cumulative impacts to air quality are anticipated to be the least

under Alternative B. Cumulative projected emissions under alternatives A, C, and D are similar;

all are projected to be greater than under Alternative B. Cumulative emissions in the planning

area are not anticipated to result in air quality impacts that exceed national or state ambient air

quality standards because the emissions sources will likely be widely dispersed.

Potential cumulative concentrations of CO, NOX, and SO2 could increase slightly, but would

be unlikely to exceed air quality standards. Existing concentrations of O3 in the planning

area are approximately 94 percent of the 8-hour ambient air quality standard. Existing PM10

concentrations in the planning area are approximately 40 percent of the annual ambient air

quality standard. O3 and particulate matter concentrations could be an issue of concern during

the planning period. The BLM will perform quantitative analyses of potential concentrations,

as appropriate, when specific projects are proposed. The BLM will continue to work with the

Wyoming DEQ and the EPA to ensure that emissions from BLM activities do not contribute to

any violations of the NAAQS or Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Potential cumulative emissions are likely to result in minor impacts to atmospheric deposition,

and precipitation pH would likely stay about the same. Potential total nitrogen deposition and

total sulfur deposition would likely stay about the same, and would be unlikely to exceed levels

of concern. The BLM will perform quantitative analyses of potential atmospheric deposition,

as appropriate, when specific projects are proposed. The BLM will continue to work with the

Wyoming DEQ, the EPA, the NPS, the USFS, and the USFWS to ensure that emissions from

BLM activities do not contribute to any exceedances of the deposition levels of concern.

Potential visibility would likely stay about the same or degrade slightly, and could be an issue

of concern during the life of the plan. The BLM will perform quantitative analyses of potential

visibility, as appropriate, when specific projects are proposed. The BLM will continue to work

with the Wyoming DEQ, the EPA, the NPS, and the USFS to ensure that emissions from BLM

activities do not contribute to adverse impacts to visibility.

4.10.3. Cumulative Impacts to Water from Management Actions

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area

The CIAAs are the significant watersheds of the Wind River and Sweetwater River/North Platte

River, both inside and upstream portions outside the planning area, and portions of the Great

Divide Basin watersheds in the planning area. Fourth-order watersheds were used as the base

unit of analysis because impacts from management actions proposed under the RMP and other

existing plans are not expected to have cumulative hydrologic influence beyond this scale. Given

that the hydrologic influence is primarily focused in the stream channels and that delineation of

the CIAA was based on watershed boundaries, the area of analysis is sufficient. More specific

information for the fourth-order Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds is provided below

in the discussion of riparian-wetland areas.

Analysis of Cumulative Impacts

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Water from Management Actions
1300 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The assumptions used in this cumulative impact assessment for water and riparian-wetlands

include:

Impacts of Invasive Species

● INNS replace the native riparian-wetland-obligate species, which reduces soil stability, water

infiltration rates, and water holding capacity, all adversely affecting riparian-wetland health.

● Water quality has thresholds that are established by their classification and designated

beneficial uses. For example, Class 1 waters allow for no degradation of their water quality,

whereas the other categories allow for varying degrees of water quality degradation so long as

the designated beneficial uses are supported.

● Surface-disturbing activities on all land tenures are all subject to the WYPDES Storm Water

Discharge control provisions, which are administered by the Wyoming DEQ. Water quality

should not be adversely affected by surface-disturbing activities of 1 or more acres because

the WYPDES program is specifically designed to keep sediment and any stored fuels and

lubricants from construction/industrial activities onsite and out of drainages

Abandoned Mine Lands

● AML projects will increase disturbance initially, but over the long term will bring stability to

historic abandoned mines and result in beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland resources.

● Except for on a short-term basis, AML work reduces erosion and improves water infiltration,

which result in net beneficial impacts to water quality.

● The presence of unnaturally occurring bare ground will lead to increases of runoff and

sedimentation. The severity of the runoff and sedimentation will vary by the design and

management of the bare ground.

● The discharge of produced water into a riparian-wetland system will adversely impact the

system. The severity of the impacts will vary.

Accelerated runoff and agricultural return flow

● Accelerated runoff can contribute to excessive energy in the stream systems and accelerate

downcutting, reduce bank stability, increase movement of sediments downstream, and

introduce fertilizers and pesticide agents.

Agricultural commodity production

● Most agricultural commodities require irrigation from local stream systems, which can

adversely impact riparian-wetland resources through the loss of available water to support

riparian-wetland-obligate species, and through return flow of irrigation water carrying

sediment, soil amendments (fertilizers), and pesticides.

● Surface-disturbing activities such as mineral development and road construction impact

localized areas, removing vegetation, compacting hydric soils, and creating a vector for runoff

and INNS establishment

Cumulative Impacts Common Among Watersheds

Adverse impacts to water quality are products of surface-disturbing activities associated with

mineral resource development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, agricultural land uses,

and improper livestock grazing management. These activities lead to increases in runoff and

sedimentation and have the potential to degrade water quality. Increased development leads to

increased INNS infestations. Land management decisions on BLM and other federal, state, and

private lands would likely result in changes in water quality beyond designated uses in some

locations within the CIAA.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Water from Management

Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1301

The above discussion under greater sage-grouse describes impacts to greater sage-grouse from

various types of activities. To the extent that those activities result in the removal or degradation

of habitat, it is equally likely that water resources would be adversely affected. Water quality can

be thought of as the sum measure of the outputs for a given watershed.

BLM-authorized activities, along with other federal, state, and private land use decisions, could

degrade water quality beyond the designated use of receiving waterbodies in some locations of

the CIAA, thereby changing water quality beyond designated uses in some locations. Mitigation

and BMPs applied as a result of state (CWA administration) and federal regulation is expected

to prevent or moderate water-quality degradation. If an authorized surface-disturbing activity

such as storm water control at industrial or construction sites violates Wyoming state law and

the CWA water-quality regulations, the Wyoming DEQ and the EPA would impose substantial

daily fines for the period of violation.

Because development from all sources is likely to continue, cumulative actions would magnify

adverse impacts associated with BLM-authorized activities. Even with proper BLM and

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission oversight, improper casing and cementing of

wells, undetected spills, or leachate from produced-water pits could introduce contaminants

into groundwater. Existing development, combined with the RFD, will increase the potential

for such adverse impacts.

Cumulative impacts would likely be the greatest in the Wind River Basin outside the Dubois

area, the Gas Hills portion of the Sweetwater River drainage, and the Great Divide Basin as a

result of mineral development and surface discharge of produced water, combined with other

surface-disturbing activities. In addition, cumulative impacts would likely increase in the

Dubois and Lander Slope areas of the western Wind River Basin as a result of the land under

private ownership and potential population in these areas, primarily through rural subdivision

development. Although existing and future activities on these lands is not well known, it is

assumed that surface-disturbing activities (e.g., mineral development and general construction)

will occur. Private landowners and, in some cases, State of Wyoming lands are also subject to the

storm water discharge control provisions of the CWA, and they are required to control sediment

on construction and industrial sites. Therefore, the BLM does not anticipated that impacts would

be greater on private or state lands. However, discharging produced waters into ephemeral

drainages from private or State of Wyoming leases or not adequately considering water treatment

options for produced water disposal could result in major impacts.

Cumulative impacts of aquifer depletion during the production of CBNG and uranium from

federal, state, and private wells would result in a permanent loss of these water resources.

Although this would result in an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of these resources,

the depths of many of these formations (1,000 to 10,000 feet) make the practicality of the use of

these resources in the future unlikely. However, lowering the water table and pressure in these

CBNG formations could impact associated artesian water resources. Typically, these formations

are non-tributary to surface waters, but connected to surface waters through springs along faults

or where they outcrop. During site-specific project planning, water quality sampling, isotopic

analysis, and groundwater modeling would be used to evaluate this potential, and decisions would

be made to protect surface waters as appropriate.

Cumulative impacts from surface-disturbing activities, water developments, and surface

discharges from CBNG and conventional oil and gas operations could degrade water quality

beyond the designated use of receiving waterbodies in the Wind River Basin.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Water from Management Actions
1302 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

In conjunction with the direct and indirect impacts of the alternatives, adverse impacts to

water resources would be greatest under Alternative C because of the anticipated increases in

development. Under Alternative B, increased restrictions on development, recreation, and

range improvement projects would reduce the potential for surface disturbance and subsequent

increases in erosion, runoff, and sediment delivery to surface waters. Alternative D would result

in the second fewest impacts, and would result in more adverse impacts than Alternative B

but fewer than alternatives A and C.

Wind River

The total acres of cumulative impact analysis in the Wind River drainage considered is 4,970,802,

of which 23 percent are BLM-administered public lands.

The Upper Wind River watershed is primarily in the Dubois area, but extends through the

WRIR, ending in the vicinity of the Riverton Dome East oil field. This watershed is comprised

of approximately 1,630,991 acres of land and is entirely encompassed within the planning area

boundaries. Only 4 percent of these acres are BLM-administered lands. The largest landowners

in this watershed are the Shoshone National Forest and WRIR (38 percent each followed by

private landowners (18 percent).

Past and present impacts to water resources in the upper reaches of this watershed are primarily

a result of timber harvest, wildfire, rural and agricultural development, and livestock grazing.

Actions such as timber harvest and wildfire often can lead to movement of large amounts

of sediments into riparian-wetland systems. Historically, the Shoshone National Forest has

performed approximately 12,000 acres of vegetative treatments including mechanical treatments,

timber sales, and prescribed burning.

Dubois, Wyoming, occupies a small portion of this watershed and a large portion of this watershed

is rural private land used for agricultural commodity production. Most of these commodities

require irrigation from local stream systems, which can adversely impact water resources through

the loss of available water to support riparian-wetland-obligate species, and through return flow of

irrigation and accelerated runoff. According to the Wyoming DEQ and the Dubois-Crowheart

Conservation District, waterborne pathogens (E. coli) in the Wind River are a concern between

the Dubois and the WRIR boundary and in the lower portions of Horse Creek (Wyoming DEQ

2010a). There is currently a watershed plan, developed by the Popo Agie Conservation District,

to remediate this problem. Twin Creek has been identified by the Wyoming DEQ as being of

concern for habitat degradation. There is also a portion of Poison Creek, for an undetermined

distance above Boysen Reservoir, that is impaired for contact recreation use.

Over time, as the monitoring and assessment of the state’s waters by the Wyoming DEQ

progresses, more waterbodies can be expected to be found to have use impairments that will

require remediation. The BLM will, as has been done for the Sweetwater watershed, attempt to

mitigate impacts to water quality by reviewing existing data, such as PFC and rangeland health

assessments, and nominate streams for monitoring by the Wyoming DEQ that have concerns

indicated by data.

The major surface-disturbing activity, subject to WYPDES Storm Water permitting requirements,

on adjacent private lands is subdivision development. The upper Wind River, in the Dubois area

north of the WRIR boundary, has seen subdivision development only paralleled in the planning

area by parts of the Lander Slope. Subdivision development occurs solely on private lands and

is a major surface-disturbing activity affecting the Upper Wind River. From 1985 to present,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Water from Management

Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1303

the amount of subdivision activity is an indication of both demand and constraints on such

development. The recent history of subdivision development in Fremont County is reflected in

the two graphs below. Lot size in the county is also influenced by state law, that before 2008,

precluded county regulation of subdivisions with lots smaller than 35 acres; the 2008 law allows

counties, should they so choose, to require large-tract developers to file plats, record contracts

for deeds, and disclose plans for providing utilities, road maintenance, and fire protection. As of

March 2010, Natrona County has taken on these new powers and Fremont County has not.

In the 1980s, there was a low demand for subdivision housing. The early 1990s saw a slight

upturn in rural subdivisions. The period from 2002 through 2008 saw the largest growth in

subdivisions. The growth of subdivisions in Fremont County shown in Figure 4.13, “Fremont

County Subdivisions, 1985-2010” (p. 1303) closely mirrors the associated acres under subdivision

development shown in Figure 4.14, “Acres under Subdivision Development in Fremont County,

1985-2010” (p. 1303). In both figures the Dubois area and the Lander Slope account for slightly

more than half of the number of subdivisions (54 percent) and the total acreage under subdivisions

(57 percent), even though they comprise less than 15 percent of the private land in the county.

History suggests that future subdivision growth will be linked to how robust the local economy is.

The present economic situation in the county, and the country at large, suggests that there will be

no rapid upturn in subdivision development for the next several years. Much of the demand for

subdivisions comes from present and former residents of the county and the state who desire to

live outside towns (Mealor 2007).

Source: Fremont County 2010

Figure 4.13. Fremont County Subdivisions, 1985-2010

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Water from Management Actions
1304 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: Fremont County 2010

Figure 4.14. Acres under Subdivision Development in Fremont County, 1985-2010

Impacts from subdivision development include increases in traffic, noise, and human activity

that can change the native plant community in forested areas and on rangelands; farmland

subdivision can decrease the farmland acreage base in the county. More physical impacts come

from associated roads and yards that can increase and concentrate water in small areas, which

can lead to soil loss and increased sediment loads in streams.

The Lower Wind River watershed is shown on Map 138. The Lower Wind River watershed is

just over 1 million acres, of which 89 percent is within the boundaries of the planning area.

The majority landowner in this watershed is the WRIR (39 percent), followed by private

landowners (27 percent), the BLM (approximately 18 percent), and the Bureau of Reclamation

(10 percent). Cumulative impacts to water resources throughout this watershed result primarily

from agricultural land use, livestock grazing, and oil and gas development.

As discussed for the Upper Wind River watershed, most of the WRIR was historically open, and

will remain open, to livestock grazing, and water resources will remain vulnerable to adverse

changes in hydrology and vegetative communities. Livestock stocking rates are generally low on

the WRIR and livestock-related impacts would be expected to be minor.

A large portion of this watershed is private land used for agricultural commodity production

and Bureau of Reclamation lands supporting irrigation systems on private lands. The impacts

from these commodities are discussed under the assumptions for analysis. Additional impacts

historically observed from the presence of private land, in particular irrigated fields, in this

watershed are the high potential source of INNS seed, which adversely impacts water resources.

Oil and gas development occurs in localized areas in the Maverick Springs, Little Dome,

Pavillion, Muddy Ridge, and part the Gun Barrel oil and gas fields. These fields, in particular the

Pavillion, Muddy Ridge, and Gun Barrel fields have been very active in recent years, leading to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Water from Management

Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1305

a high level of surface-disturbing activities. These activities contribute to the sedimentation of

riparian-wetland systems adjacent to these fields and increases in overland flow.

This watershed encompasses Boysen Reservoir and Ocean Lake. Both of these waterbodies are

managed by the State of Wyoming and are protected from surface-disturbing activities such as

oil and gas development; these protection benefit local riparian-wetland resources. However,

these waterbodies are highly utilized for recreation activities such as OHV use, camping,

fishing, and hunting activities, which results in potential adverse impacts to riparian-wetland

areas. The cumulative impacts to water resources in the Lower Wind River watershed will be

influenced largely by management on WRIR and Bureau of Reclamation lands in the upstream

portions of the watershed. However, the additional riparian-wetland buffers and limitations on

livestock utilization in riparian-wetland areas provided under Alternative B would beneficially

impact riparian-wetland resources cumulatively. The limitations on livestock utilization in

riparian-wetland habitats provided under Alternative D would likewise result in cumulative

beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland resources in this watershed.

Most of the oil and gas production in the planning area occurs in this watershed, primarily in the

Badwater, Lysite, Bridger, Alkali, and Poison creeks drainages; Twin Creek and Little Popo Agie

River, Big and Little Sand draws, and Alkali Butte; and lower Beaver Creek. There are a few

wells in the rest of the basin, including several in Dubois, along the Popo Agie River northeast of

Lander, Muskrat Creek, and other locations. The projected acres of surface disturbance associated

with oil and gas development from non-BLM actions are identified in Appendix T (p. 1641).

Future production is expected to occur primarily in and around the existing oil fields. The amount

of surface disturbance associated with this development is expected to increase in and adjacent

to these existing fields, rather than development of new fields.

The Wyoming DEQ AML Division is completing safety and rehabilitation work on abandoned

mines in the Copper Mountain (Bridger Mountain Range) area. There could be a few new projects

in this area. Near the Hudson, AML program work will occur in conjunction with old coal mines

primarily on patented mine land where mining activity ended by the late 1920s. The Gas Hills

area has seen much AML work in the past, but it is not expected to continue at its present rate.

There are limited areas with surface and groundwater quality problems from past mining and

milling activities in the Gas Hills uranium district.

Sweetwater River and North Platte River Drainage

The total acres of cumulative impact analysis area in the Sweetwater River and North Platte

River drainage is 1,894,398, of which 59 percent is BLM-administered public land. The CWA

Class 1 water-quality portion of the Sweetwater River has a watershed area of 545,425 acres, of

which 395,874 acres (73 percent) are BLM-administered public lands. This Class 1 water-quality

portion of the Sweetwater River is located from the confluence with Alkali Creek and upstream

to its origin in the Bridger National Forest at Sweetwater Gap on the Continental Divide. This

section has the highest water-quality protections and allows for no degradation of water quality.

Threats to these systems include mining, oil development, AML work, and water depletion.

The watershed of the Sweetwater River includes much the area of past gold mining on South Pass.

Abandoned placer gold dredging operations have disturbed long stretches of Rock Creek as well

as parts of Willow Creek and other creeks in the South Pass area. Land tenure is a patchwork of

patented mining land, State of Wyoming land, and claims on BLM-administered public lands.

The BLM believes that approximately half the annual gold mining activity on South Pass occurs

on land tenures other than BLM. Currently, there are a few seasonally active placer mining

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Water from Management Actions
1306 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

operations that work small (less than 1⁄4 acre) portions of draws and creeks, but there are no large

mining operations. There is no expectation that this will change in the future.

There is no expectation of substantial change to the existing level of oil development in this

watershed. Only a portion of this activity occurs on private and state lands. The Bison Basin

oilfield, which consists of a few wells, is along an ephemeral drainage that is a tributary to the

Sweetwater River, approximately 12 miles south of the river. There is some oil production in the

Sheep Creek, Happy Spring, and Crooks Gap oilfields. There are a few scattered wells in other

locations such as Cedar Ridge, Long Creek, and the top of Crooks Mountain.

This watershed also includes Wyoming DEQ AML projects to mitigate safety concerns and

stabilize old mines. The Wyoming DEQ AML Division has completed safety and rehabilitation

work on approximately 100 abandoned mines and sites in the South Pass area. Mercury in

streambed sediment of the local streams, especially Rock Creek and Willow Creek, does not

appear to affect water quality, but this pollutant could be suspended if these sediments are

disturbed by dredging. WGFD fish tissue sampling showed that mercury levels in Willow

Creek were below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration guideline for action limit in muscle,

but higher in gut tissues. This trend does not suggest a human health concern, but could be

a concern for fish-eating wildlife. The Wyoming DEQ assessment of Willow Creek shows full

support of aquatic life uses.

Extensive AML work has occurred in the Gas Hills and the Green Mountain-Crooks Gap area,

much of it on private land. There are some projects nearing completion in these areas, and one

project is scheduled for an abandoned coal mine in the Muddy Gap area. After 2013, new

projects on South Pass and in the Gas Hills are expected to commence. AML work in the Green

Mountain-Crooks Gap area will be largely completed in the next couple of years. As indicated

above, AML work results in a long-term beneficial impact to water resources.

Some adverse impacts to water quality from uranium mining are anticipated in the vicinity of

Jeffrey City, both in situ and open pit or subsurface mining as well as discharges from tailings

piles. As indicated above, requirements of the WYPDES program should alleviate some of the

adverse impacts historically observed.

In 2002, the USFWS issued a revised intra-service biological opinion and conference opinion

regarding federal actions that individually deplete 25 acre-feet or less to the Platte River System

(USFWS 1996). Individual projects that deplete less than 25 acre-feet are considered minor

depletions. Individual projects that deplete more than 25 acre-feet are considered major depletions

and require consultation. Cumulatively, all BLM and non-BLM actions over the planning period

are anticipated to deplete more than 25 acre-feet of water in the Platte River System, but none

of the proposed actions individually would exceed 25 acre-feet. The USFWS (USFWS 2002b)

indicates that most of the proposed federal and non-federal actions within the Platte River System

are anticipated to involve water depletions. The USFWS and Bureau of Reclamation are currently

addressing the issue of water depletion in the Platte River System through preparation of the Platte

River Recovery Implementation Program EIS (USFWS 2002b). The cumulative impact of water

depletions within the Platte River System to special status species downstream in the Platte River

is well documented (BOR and USFWS 2005) and expected to continue during the planning period.

The Fish and Wildlife Resources and the Special Status Species – Fish sections of this chapter

described project water depletions from and potential adverse impacts to special status species in

the Sweetwater River watershed, which is a part of the Platte River System, from BLM actions

described in this RMP. Water depletions from non-BLM actions are anticipated from development

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Water from Management

Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1307

of oil and gas wells, fish and wildlife water sources, and livestock water sources. Development

of fish and wildlife water sources on private lands in the planning area not administered by the

BLM are not anticipated.

Human population and related development in the Sweetwater River watershed has historically

been tied to boom and bust cycles of the mineral industries; these cycles resulted in almost

5,000 people living at Jeffrey City in the late 1970s but only a few residents today. The same is

true for Atlantic City and South Pass City. Miners Delight and Lewiston are now ghost towns.

Population-driven subdivision development in this area will occur only in relation to favorable

market conditions for local minerals. Water depletion due to such development is not anticipated

in the near future, even with moderate interest in uranium.

Because projected water depletions from BLM actions are highest under Alternative C and

because water depletions from non-BLM actions are not expected to vary by alternative, the

greatest cumulative adverse water depletions are anticipated under Alternative C and the least

cumulative adverse water depletions are anticipated under Alternative B. Alternative D would

result in impacts between alternatives A and B concerning depletions in the Sweetwater River

watershed and those minor portions of the Platte River System in the planning area.

Crooks Creek is an impaired waterbody due to oil and grease contamination of unknown origin.

The BLM compiled a list of streams in the Sweetwater River watershed with identified concerns

from PFC inventory data, and submitted the list to the Wyoming DEQ in 2004 for inclusion on

their monitoring program.

Great Divide Basin

There are 161,324 total acres of the Great Divide Basin in the planning area, 92 percent of

which are BLM-administered public lands. The Great Divide Basin is influenced by oil and

gas development, including CBNG, and exploration, and most recently by increased uranium

exploration and potential mining; this activity occurs in the adjoining Rawlins and Rock Springs

planning areas and on private and State of Wyoming lands. Both in situ mining projects and

traditional shaft and open-pit mines would adversely impact surface water and groundwater.

There is some oil production in the Red Creek area and there is CBNG exploratory drilling

along the Fremont/Sweetwater county line; any substantial new oil and gas development would

likely occur along the county line.

Wind-energy development is likely to occur in the Great Divide Basin, 99,685 acres of which

have high wind-energy potential. Industrial wind-energy development (as opposed to the smaller

structures utilized in the livestock grazing program), involve extensive surface disturbance,

including roads, pads, and transmission lines. As with any type of surface disturbance,

wind-energy development has the potential to adversely impact water quality if not properly

mitigated by the application of storm water discharge management.

4.10.4. Cumulative Impacts to Riparian-Wetland Areas from

Management Actions

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources extends outside the

planning area, following the fourth-order watershed or HUC) boundaries. The CIAA is comprised

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Riparian-Wetland Areas

from Management Actions
1308 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

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 from

the final RMP and land use plans for planning areas adjacent to the planning area is not expected

to have a hydrologic influence beyond this scale.

Analysis of Cumulative Impacts

As with water resources in general, adverse impacts to riparian-wetland systems are a product of

surface-disturbing activities associated with mineral resource development, motorized vehicle

use, road construction, and agricultural land uses. These activities lead to increases in runoff

and sedimentation into riparian-wetland areas. Surface-disturbing activities such as mineral

development and road construction impact localized areas of riparian-wetland systems, removing

vegetation, compacting hydric soils, and creating a vector for runoff and INNS establishment.

Private agricultural lands that are grazed or irrigated with water from adjacent stream systems can

adversely impact riparian-wetland health. A large portion of the local riparian-wetland areas are

on private lands. Livestock grazing can result in a direct adverse impact to riparian-wetland areas

through the removal of vegetation, compaction of riparian-wetland soils, and reduction of bank

stability. If prolonged, this activity can lead to a change in plant community that will not support

riparian-wetland health and will create a non-functioning system as riparian-wetland-obligate

species are replaced by upland species and more salt-tolerant communities. The cumulative

impacts to riparian-wetland systems from these activities would vary widely, not only by

alternative, but by the individual watershed in which these activities occur. The following

paragraphs describe cumulative impacts for each fourth-order watershed.

The Upper Wind River watershed is primarily in the Dubois area, but extends through the

WRIR, ending in the vicinity of the Riverton Dome East oilfield. This watershed is comprised of

approximately 1,630,991 acres and is entirely encompassed within the planning area boundaries.

Only 4 percent of these acres are BLM-administered lands. As mentioned in the cumulative

impacts to water section above, the Shoshone National Forest and WRIR own most of the land in

this watershed. Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources in the upper reaches of this

watershed would result primarily from timber harvest, wildfire, and livestock grazing on these

lands. Activities such as timber harvesting and wildfire can often result in adverse impacts due to

movement of sediments into riparian-wetland systems.

Historically, the Shoshone National Forest has performed approximately 12,000 acres of

vegetative treatments, including mechanical treatments, timber sales, and prescribed fire;

however, the level of sediment movement associated with these activities cannot be quantified

at this time. The adverse impacts from Dubois and the surrounding agricultural areas discussed

in the water section also apply to the riparian-wetland systems in the area. Impacts include

loss of available water to support riparian-wetland-obligate species, sediment, soil amendments

(fertilizers), and pesticides. Introduction of INNS can impact water infiltration rates and water

holding capacity, which adversely impacts riparian-wetland health.

Impacts to riparian-wetland systems on the WRIR would be the same as discussed above in

the water section.

Oil and gas development occurs in localized areas in the Sheldon Dome, Northwest Sheldon

Dome, Steamboat Butte, Riverton Dome East, Indian Butte, and Alkali Butte oil and gas fields.

The surface disturbance associated with the development of these fields contributes cumulatively

to the total amount of bare ground, increasing soil compaction, runoff, and sedimentation into

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Riparian-Wetland Areas from

Management Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1309

riparian-wetland systems. However, these fields are older, highly developed, and do not generate

a large amount of new disturbance. A number of these fields have permits to discharge produced

water to the surface, contributing to increased salinity and water volumes in this watershed.

The cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources in the Upper Wind River watershed

could be reduced to some degree under Alternative B due to the closure of this area to mineral

development; however, given the small percentage of land influenced by the management actions

in the Lander RMP, variability between alternatives is not expected to affect the watershed.

The Badwater watershed is east of Boysen Reservoir from Highway 20 extending east toward

Arminto, Wyoming. The watershed is 548,466 acres, and 59 percent is within the boundaries

of the planning area. The largest landowners in this watershed are the BLM (56 percent) (18

percent outside the planning area) and private landowners (32 percent) (17 percent outside of the

planning area). Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources in this watershed are heavily

influenced by oil and gas development.

The Badwater watershed is an area with high potential for oil and gas and has historically been an

area of intense development in the planning area. Oil and gas development occurs primarily in

the Madden Deep, Iron Horse, and Gun Barrel units. The Gun Barrel unit splits the boundary

between the Badwater and Lower Wind River watersheds; however, most of the unit is in the

Badwater watershed.

The total level of development, including BLM, is expected to continue. There are approximately

1,400 wells proposed in the area over the next 10 years. See Appendix T (p. 1641) for information

on surface disturbance associated with private and state lands. The existing development plays

a role in the high level of bare ground and soil compaction, contributing to adverse impacts to

riparian-wetland areas in the form of increased overland flow and sedimentation. All three units

have permits to discharge produced water to surface; most of the water discharged is produced in

the Gun Barrel unit. This produced water contributes to sediment movement into riparian-wetland

resources in this watershed. Furthermore, it introduces hydrocarbons, heavy metals, VOCs, and

high levels of sodium, all of which can change the existing plant communities and soil chemistry,

adversely impacting riparian-wetland health.

Private land ownership also has a heavy influence on riparian-wetland impacts due to the close

correlation and proximity of private land and riparian-wetlands. In particular, the lands around the

Lost Cabin area in this watershed are a high potential source of INNS seed that can be introduced

into riparian-wetland systems.

This watershed has had few active mining claims in recent years; however, the AML program has

been active in cleaning up historical mines in the northern reaches of this watershed.

Livestock grazing occurs on most of the lands in this watershed, including state and private lands,

adversely impacting riparian-wetland resources in localized areas. However, the impacts from

livestock grazing are not as noteworthy in this watershed as those from oil and gas development.

Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources in the Badwater watershed would be

substantially less under Alternative B than under the other alternatives as a result of greater

restrictions on slope disturbances, restrictions on surface water discharges, livestock utilization

levels, wildlife and special status species restrictions, and increases in riparian-wetland buffers.

Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources would not vary in the Badwater watershed from

management actions under alternatives A and C. Alternative D would provide more protections to

riparian-wetland resources through greater restrictions on livestock utilization in riparian-wetland

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Riparian-Wetland Areas

from Management Actions
1310 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

areas, than alternatives A and C, which would result in fewer livestock-related cumulative adverse

impacts. Most of the Badwater watershed is considered a DDA, which results in the potential

for fewer restrictions on oil and gas development and management of riparian-wetland areas

more similar to Alternative C. Alternative D places greater restrictions on surface discharge of

produced water than alternatives A and C, but would not protect riparian-wetland resources as

well as Alternative B. There is a potential under Alternative D for riparian-wetland buffers to be

reduced below 500 feet if it can be shown that impacts could be properly mitigated. It is expected

that with reduced buffers and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities that Alternative D would

result in higher levels of sedimentation in riparian-wetland areas than alternatives A and B.

Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources in the Badwater watershed would be lowest

under Alternative B, followed by alternatives A, D, and C.

The Little Wind River watershed is in the southern end of the WRIR, running from the base of

the Wind River Range east to the Beaver Creek oilfield and south along Beaver Creek up to

the South Pass area, and is comprised of approximately 713,900 acres, all of which are within

the boundaries of the planning area. The majority landowners in this watershed are the WRIR

(42 percent), private landowners (27 percent), and the BLM (25 percent). Cumulative impacts

to riparian-wetland resources in this watershed are primarily influenced by agricultural land

use and oil and gas development.

The upper reaches of this watershed along the Little Wind River on the WRIR and Beaver Creek

are primarily private lands used for agricultural production. These irrigated lands contribute to

reductions in in-stream flow, adversely impacting riparian-wetland resources. As described

above, agricultural lands contribute to the return flow of irrigation water into riparian-wetland

areas, carrying sediments, soil amendments, pesticides, and INNS seed and contributing to

riparian-wetland degradation. In addition, the development of housing in these areas contributes to

increases in runoff and sedimentation into riparian-wetland systems, although these developments

are much smaller than the subdivisions in Dubois and Lander described above.

Oil and gas development primarily occurs in the Riverton Dome and Beaver Creek oilfields.

Historically, these fields have produced oil, but now are being developed to produce CBNG. The

RFD for both fields is expected to be approximately 550 wells over the next 10 years. Both

fields contribute to a high degree of bare ground and contribute produced water discharge into

Beaver Creek.

The South Pass area of this watershed has historically been mined for gold. The mining

activities have lead to disturbed ground and introduction of chemicals, including mercury, into

the riparian-wetland systems. These impacts were discussed above under water quality. The

level of current development is lower than it has been historically; however, recreational gold

prospecting still occurs.

Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources in the Little Wind River watershed

would be largely driven by management actions on the WRIR and actions on private lands.

Surface-disturbing activities and livestock grazing would be restricted on BLM-administered

lands to a much greater degree under Alternative B, benefitting riparian-wetland resources along

the Beaver Creek drainage system. Alternative D is expected to provide additional protections to

riparian-wetland resources from livestock grazing over alternatives A and C. However the Beaver

Creek oilfield is in a DDA, which could result in fewer restrictions on surface-disturbing activities

related to oil and gas development. Because the Beaver Creek oilfield is an area that represents

some of the highest levels of surface-disturbing activities in the Little Wind River watershed,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Riparian-Wetland Areas from

Management Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1311

the continued development of this field is expected to continue to contribute to the cumulative

adverse impacts to this watershed. Cumulative impacts to this watershed related to mineral

development are not expected to vary by alternative.

The Popo Agie watershed is primarily in the Lander Slope and South Pass areas. This watershed

is comprised of approximately 514,184 acres, 99 percent of which is within the planning area

boundaries. The majority landowners in this watershed are the Shoshone National Forest (38

percent, 1 percent outside of the planning area boundaries), private landowners (26 percent), and

the BLM (25 percent). Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources in this watershed are

primarily the result of rural development on the Lander Slope and agricultural land use around

the town of Lander. Most of the lands in the Shoshone National Forest in this watershed are

wilderness, which prohibits much of the surface-disturbing activities encountered throughout the

planning area, such as timber harvesting and mineral development. Surface disturbance occurs as

a result of recreational activities in the form of primitive campsites and hiking and pack trails.

Rural development of private lands on the Lander Slope contributes to the level of bare

ground. The town of Lander and the surrounding agricultural areas contribute to a high

degree of accelerated runoff and irrigation return flow, much of which flows directly into the

riparian-wetland systems in the area. A large portion of this watershed is private land used for

agricultural commodity production. Private land, in particular irrigated fields, in this watershed

are a high potential source of INNS seed that can be introduced into riparian-wetland systems.

Oil and gas development is minimal in this watershed, but occurs in localized areas in the Lander,

Dallas Dome, and Derby Dome oilfields. The surface disturbance associated with the development

of these fields contributes cumulatively to the total amount of bare ground. These fields are older,

highly developed, and do not generate a large amount of new disturbance. A number of these

fields have permits to discharge produced water to the surface, contributing to increased salinity

and water volumes in this watershed. The cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources in the

Popo Agie watershed are not expected to vary substantially by alternative.

The Muskrat watershed is in the area south of Shoshone, Wyoming, to Beaver Rim and east

almost to the Natrona County border. This watershed is comprised of approximately 471,031

acres, all of which is within the planning area boundaries. The majority landowner in this

watershed is the BLM (82 percent), followed by private landowners (10 percent), and the State of

Wyoming (7 percent). Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources in this watershed are

influenced primarily by livestock grazing and mining activities in the Gas Hills area.

Unlike most of the other watersheds in the planning area, most riparian-wetland areas in this

watershed are on BLM-administered lands and are affected by historic and current livestock

grazing. Improper livestock grazing management adversely impacts riparian-wetlands through

the removal of vegetation, soil compaction, and destruction of bank stability. Soil compaction and

the removal of vegetation can change the plant community to a more grazing-resistant community

or upland plant community, adversely impacting riparian-wetland health.

Historical uranium production has resulted in very large areas of soil disturbance. There is very

little active mining in the Gas Hills, and most of the ground disturbance has been reclaimed or is

making progress toward successful reclamation.

Oil and gas development primarily occurs in the Fuller oilfield, and is primarily older

development contributing to a localized increase in bare ground and produced-water discharge.

This produced water contributes substantially to sediment movement into riparian-wetland

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Riparian-Wetland Areas

from Management Actions
1312 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

resources in this watershed. There is some new natural gas, but there are currently no plans for

expanded development in this field.

Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources in the Muskrat watershed would be substantially

less under Alternative B than under the other alternatives as a result of greater restrictions

on livestock grazing in riparian-wetland areas, slope disturbances, surface water discharge

restrictions, wildlife and special status species restrictions, and increases in riparian-wetland

buffers. Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources would not vary in the Muskrat

watershed from the management actions under alternatives A and C. Alternative D provides

better protections to riparian-wetland resources resulting from greater restrictions on livestock

utilization in riparian-wetland areas than alternatives A and C, which would result in fewer

livestock-related cumulative adverse impacts. However, the eastern portions of the watershed

historically mined are considered a DDA, which results in the potential for fewer restrictions on

oil and gas development and management of riparian-wetland areas more similar to Alternative C.

Alternative D places greater restrictions on surface discharge of produced water than alternatives

A and C, but would not protect riparian-wetland resources as well as Alternative B. There is the

potential under Alternative D for riparian-wetland buffers to be reduced to less than 500 feet in the

DDAs if it can be shown that impacts could be properly mitigated. However, the BLM does not

expect substantial mineral development in this watershed; therefore, the riparian-wetland buffers

would be sufficient to mitigate adverse impacts resulting from such activities. Cumulative impacts

to riparian-wetland resources in the Muskrat watershed would be lowest under Alternative B,

followed by alternatives D, A, and C.

The Sweetwater River watershed is one of the largest watersheds in the planning area; it spans the

southern boundary of the planning area from South Pass east to Pathfinder Reservoir and from

Beaver Rim south to Green Mountain. This watershed is comprised of approximately 1,858,374

acres, of which approximately 76 percent is within the boundaries of the planning area. The

majority landowner in this watershed is the BLM (75 percent, 16 percent outside the planning

area boundaries), followed by private landowners (13 percent, 3 percent outside the planning

area boundaries), and the State of Wyoming (8 percent, 2 percent outside the planning area

boundaries). Much like the Muskrat watershed, cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources

in the Sweetwater River watershed are influenced primarily by livestock grazing and mining

activities around Jeffrey City, Wyoming. Most of the riparian-wetland areas in this watershed are

on BLM-administered lands; however, the riparian-wetland areas around the Sweetwater River

are primarily owned by private landowners.

Riparian-wetland areas in this watershed are affected primarily by historic and current livestock

grazing. Improper livestock grazing management adversely impacts riparian-wetlands through

the removal of vegetation, soil compaction, and destruction of bank stability. Soil compaction and

the removal of vegetation can change the plant community to a more grazing-resistant community

or upland plant community, adversely impacting riparian-wetland health.

Historic uranium production has resulted in large areas of soil disturbance. There have also been

a number of new uranium prospects with the potential to adversely impact riparian-wetland

resources. Most new uranium prospects are for in situ leach production, which reduces surface

disturbance compared to open-pit mining. These development are similar to an oil and gas field,

and would result in similar impacts to riparian-wetland resources.

Oil and gas development primarily occurs in the Bison Basin, Happy Springs, and Crooks Gap

oilfields, and is primarily older development contributing to a localized increase in bare ground.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Riparian-Wetland Areas from

Management Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1313

There has been some new oil development in the Bison Basin oilfield, and there is the potential

for expanded development of this field.

Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources from surface-disturbing activities such as

mineral development in the Sweetwater River watershed would not vary substantially by

alternative. Under alternatives A, B, and D, this watershed is largely protected by a series

of ACECs, WSAs, wildlife and special status species restrictions, and VRM restrictions

for trail protections. The overlapping restrictions would result in cumulative beneficial

impacts to riparian-wetland resources. Alternative B would best moderate adverse impacts

to riparian-wetlands from non-BLM activities as a result of greater restrictions on livestock

utilization in riparian-wetland areas, slope disturbances, surface water discharge restrictions,

wildlife and special status species restrictions, and increases in riparian-wetland buffers.

Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources would not vary in the Sweetwater River

watershed from the management actions under alternatives A and C. Alternative D better protects

riparian-wetland resources due to greater restrictions on livestock utilization in riparian-wetland

areas than alternatives A and C, which would result in fewer cumulative adverse impacts.

Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources in the Sweetwater River watershed would be

lowest under Alternative B, followed by alternatives D, A, and C.

The Upper Bighorn, Nowood, Middle North Platte, and Great Divide Basin watersheds are all

on the edges of the planning area. These four watersheds are comprised of approximately 8.2

million acres combined; however, only approximately 5 percent of this acreage is in the planning

area. Cumulative impacts in these watersheds are influenced very little by the management

actions of the planning area. However, in the Great Divide Closed Basin, uranium development

south of Green Mountain will contribute to cumulative adverse impacts to riparian-wetland

resources. The ongoing exploration for uranium in this area, combined with the future prospects

and the development activities in the Rawlins planning area will contribute to increases in ground

disturbance in this area. The increases in ground-disturbing activities will increase overland

flow and sedimentation into riparian-wetland areas in this watershed. Cumulative impacts to

riparian-wetland resources in these watersheds could be reduced to some degree under Alternative

B due to the increased restrictions on livestock utilization in and mineral development in

riparian-wetland areas; however, given the small percentage of land influenced by the management

actions in the Lander RMP, the variability among alternatives is not expected to be substantial.

Cumulative impacts to riparian-wetland resources in these watersheds will primarily be driven by

the management actions identified in the Bighorn Basin RMP, Casper RMP, and Rawlins RMP.

4.10.5. Cumulative Impacts to Vegetative Communities from

Surface-Disturbing Activities and Other Management Actions

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area

Upland Vegetation

The CIAA for upland vegetation is the planning area. Upland vegetation includes grasslands,

sagebrush, desert shrubs, and saltbush-greasewood flats, and mountain shrubs, as described

in Chapter 3. This area was used as the area of analysis because impacts from management

actions proposed under the RMP and other existing plans are not expected to have a

cumulative influence beyond this scale.

Forests and Woodlands

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Vegetative Communities

from Surface-Disturbing Activities and Other

Management Actions
1314 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts to forests and woodlands extends throughout

the planning area, inclusive of the South Zone of the Shoshone National Forest because

these correspond to the fourth-order HUC watershed level discussed for riparian-wetlands.

Cumulative impacts at this level mirror and are indicative of impacts at the much larger

Central Rocky Mountain region scale in terms of contemporary impacts from forests and

woodlands management.

Analysis of Cumulative Impacts

Assumptions used in this cumulative impact analysis for vegetation include:

● Surface disturbance resulting in removal of vegetation has a net adverse impact on upland

vegetation.

Upland Vegetation

Past and present actions that affect and have affected vegetative resources include livestock

grazing, recreational uses (primarily OHVs), mineral and energy exploration and development,

woodland harvest, and vegetative treatments (including those for fire management) on adjacent

WRIR, private, State of Wyoming lands, and non-BLM federal lands (Bureau of Reclamation)

immediately adjacent to and within the planning area. These actions, described above and in

Chapter 3, include disturbances associated with drilling, building access roads, and placement of

pipelines.

The projected acres of surface disturbance associated with reasonably foreseeable actions on

non-BLM-administered lands in the planning area are provided in Appendix T (p. 1641). This

projection understates adverse impacts because the BLM cannot forecast private activities. As

indicated above for water resources cumulative impacts, subdivision of private lands and mineral

development fluctuates with economic and other factors. As non-BLM development occurs, it

magnifies trends resulting from BLM actions.

The spatial layout of oil and gas and energy facilities disturbs a large proportion of vegetation

when considered across the planning area. Each disturbed area for a well pad increases the

opportunity for INNS invasions and disrupts the spatial continuity of vegetative communities.

Past, present, and future surface disturbance from oil and gas development is expected to be

highest in the Gunbarrel-Madden-Ironhorse, Beaver Creek, and Bison Basin units.

Past vegetative treatments and wildfire have resulted in beneficial impacts to upland vegetation.

Vegetative treatments result in short-term impacts to vegetation by decreasing vegetation

production and increasing establishment of early successional species. In the long term,

vegetative treatments increase available forage and water for livestock and wildlife populations

(for use by private operators) in these areas.

Past fire suppression has contributed to increasing juniper encroachment in the planning area and

to a concurrent decrease in aspen communities. Juniper encroachment adversely impacts upland

vegetation communities by transitioning the ecosystem structure and decreasing the overall

acreage of upland vegetation.

Lands with well-maintained range improvements adjacent to the planning area increase available

forage and water for livestock and wildlife populations (for use by private operators) in these

areas. This improves distribution of livestock and wildlife, improving vegetation condition on

BLM-administered lands. These incremental beneficial impacts result in healthier vegetative

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Vegetative Communities from

Surface-Disturbing Activities and Other Management

Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1315

communities that are more capable of retaining moisture and nutrients and resisting disease, INNS

invasion, drought, and other natural disturbances and stressors.

Lands with seasonal or yearlong grazing and unmaintained or nonexistent range improvements

experience decreased health of vegetative communities. Unhealthy vegetation is incapable of

retaining moisture and nutrients and resisting disease, INNS invasion, drought, and other natural

disturbances and stressors.

Motorized recreation adversely impacts vegetation. Cross-country OHV use destroys vegetation

as tires travel over the ground surface. Repeated passes by motorized vehicles removes vegetation

in vehicle tracks. Unwashed tires can transport INNS seeds, and roads historically have been

source locations for INNS populations. Localized impacts can be quite severe, but across the

CIAA, impacts from motorized recreation are negligible.

Subdivision and agricultural development adversely impact upland vegetative communities. Not

only do these activities often remove native vegetation, there is an increased need for water to

support this development. It also continues to impact the continuity of vegetation on a landscape

basis. Special status plant species, under the ESA and Wyoming BLM sensitive species guidance,

are protected on federal lands by exclusion or avoidance of all surface-disturbing activities.

Protection of these species and other natural resources on private and state lands might not occur,

resulting in adverse impacts to these species and resources.

The CIAA has historically experienced substantial proliferation of INNS into areas considered

weed free, and a substantial increase would occur in INNS where they already exist. Integrated

INNS management reduces the spread and potential for INNS establishment. Private lands are not

subject to the same INNS control measures as public lands; therefore, infestations are generally

not treated as rapidly and thoroughly as infestations on public land.

The alternatives vary in their protections for vegetative resources. Alternative B and then

Alternative D have the most limitations on development and would result in the fewest adverse

impacts to vegetation and the least contributions to cumulative adverse impacts. However,

alternatives A and C do not adopt the Core Area strategy or implement it on a case-by-case basis,

and would result in more adverse impacts than alternatives B and D. Therefore, alternatives A and

C would contribute more to cumulative adverse impacts to vegetative resources.

Under Alternative D, protections for greater sage-grouse habitat under the Core Area strategy

would also protect upland vegetation from permitted discretionary actions. To the extent that

non-Core Area is managed with fewer greater sage-grouse protections, it is likely that vegetation

in those areas will be more adversely affected. As discussed for cumulative impacts to greater

sage-grouse, management under the Executive Order and the IM will likely result in more

development of private lands not managed in accordance with the Core Area strategy. The

cumulative impact of these actions will exacerbate the adverse impacts of BLM actions with

a multiplier sort of effect.

The cumulative impacts to vegetation from activities for all resources is projected to be moderate

in the short term. It is not anticipated that BLM management actions will cause measurable

changes to the vegetation disturbance occurring on non-BLM-administered lands. Therefore,

Alternative B would protect the most vegetative resources and Alternative C would result in the

greatest cumulative adverse impacts to vegetation.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Vegetative Communities

from Surface-Disturbing Activities and Other

Management Actions
1316 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Over the long term, BLM activities would improve vegetation composition through vegetative fire

and fuels treatments and comprehensive grazing strategies. Over the short term, these activities

would adversely impact vegetation by reducing the forage base, thereby increasing wildlife and

livestock grazing on existing vegetative resources. Furthermore, the displacement of wildlife and

livestock associated with surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities would serve to increase

grazing on undisturbed vegetative resources. Surface disturbance would increase the proliferation

of INNS, which would increase the need for weed-control activities.

Long-term impacts would include increased production and diversity of vegetative communities.

The degree of impacts to vegetative communities would depend on the timing of activities and

whether the amount of activity in the CIAA outpaces successful reclamation and revegetation

efforts in disturbed areas. The implementation of BLM reclamation and mitigation guidelines,

best comprehensive grazing strategies, and restrictions on surface use would help reduce overall

impacts. However, given the level of anticipated mineral development and the fact that most

of the native shrub communities (e.g., sagebrush) require more than 20 years to reestablish to

predisturbance conditions, surface disturbance impacts are expected under all alternatives, with

alternatives A and C resulting in the greatest adverse impacts to plant communities. Impacts

under alternatives B and D would be similar, but less adverse. Development activities under all

the alternatives would result in the removal of unique attributes of vegetative communities and

would reduce the ability of vegetative resources to support other resource values.

Forests and Woodlands

Chapter 3 describes the impacts to forest and woodland resources from past actions in the

planning area. Notable past actions include an active commercial logging program from the early

20th Century through the early 1990s on Green Mountain, in the South Pass area, and on USFS

and private lands in the Dubois area. In these areas, the mixture of age-class structure is still

noticeable, specifically in the Green Mountain area. This landscape-level age-class mixture is less

noticeable in the South Pass and Dubois areas. Acres of historically logged forestlands in the

CIAA are minor compared to acres that have had some type of silviculture treatment in the past.

The prominence of even-aged stands 100 to 200 years old across the CIAA that are nearing the

historic fire return interval in this area, combined with continued fire suppression throughout most

of the 20th Century to the present, has resulted in forested areas dominated by lodgepole pine that

are fully mature and more susceptible to insect and disease outbreaks. This is evident with the

bark beetle outbreak that has heavily affected the northern portion of the CIAA and is anticipated

to substantially affect the southern portion of the CIAA over the coming years. Of the 1.3 million

forested acres in the Shoshone National Forest, approximately 823,000 acres, or 63 percent, of the

forest are affected by bark beetles. Likewise, acreage of mountain pine beetle, Douglas-fir beetle,

and other bark beetles on the WRIR are similar in their extent. Of the 170,000 forested cover

types acres on the WRIR, 120,000 acres (70 percent) are affected by bark beetles.

Fire in woodland areas over the past 15 years has altered specific portions of the CIAA, but

alteration has not been widespread due to active fire suppression and changes in many portions

of the historic landscape, and contemporary resource uses and public infrastructure that have

altered the natural landscape. Conifer woodlands have also increased in acreage due to fire

suppression strategies and contemporary resource uses. Deciduous woodlands have decreased

for the same reasons.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Vegetative Communities from

Surface-Disturbing Activities and Other Management

Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1317

Development in the WUI has not been substantial in terms of acreage in forest and woodland

areas throughout the CIAA. However, development in the past on private lands adjacent to

BLM-administered lands has made management of BLM forests and woodlands both more

critical and challenging to implement.

The significance of widespread bark beetle outbreaks in forest and woodland areas has led to

extensive die-off of trees and removal of dead and dying trees in the WUI. This is specific to the

Wind River Range, specifically the Dubois area, and increasingly in the Lander Slope and South

Pass areas. Green Mountain has not experienced the same landscape-level insect and disease

outbreaks. The removal of trees is concentrated on treating priority areas, and is minor in relation

to the entire forested landscape. The priority of tree removal is for protecting WUI communities

and infrastructure from increased fire danger associated with stands of dead trees.

Mechanical treatments of woodland communities is ongoing throughout the CIAA and results in a

net loss of woodland acreage, but that loss is minor compared to existing woodland communities.

Similarly, the harvesting of over-the-counter and commercial wood products is ongoing, but the

harvest is sustainable and minor compared to the maintenance of areas that are not harvested.

It is anticipated that management of forest and woodland stands will continue the pattern of the

last 15 years. Increased loss of forested stands will lead to stand management that could include

more extensive use of wildland fire in areas where it is allowed to burn without threatening human

health and safety. Increased mechanical treatments of forest stands are also anticipated and will

serve to restore forested communities where fire is not a viable option. The primary impacts

to forested areas in the planning area will come from actions of the USFS on the Shoshone

National Forest, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on the WRIR, and private landowners in

the Dubois and South Pass areas. Limits on the use of prescribed fire and the use of wildland

fire in woodland and forested areas due to increased public and private infrastructure and WUI

will restrict management options in many areas. Increased infrastructure and disturbance due

to mineral development in woodland areas will be minimal across the CIAA, but will likewise

limit the use of fire in certain forested areas due to prohibitive complexity and liability associated

with the use of natural processes such as fire.

Woodland health treatments will continue so as to restore juniper and limber pine woodlands and

aspen communities. Mechanical treatments and prescribed fire will be used across the CIAA to

achieve multiple resource benefits. Although prescribed fire will continue in these areas, annual

livestock use of areas will continue to limit the use of fire in many woodland areas.

Protections for threatened and endangered and sensitive species will limit management options

across the CIAA and potentially restrict certain forest and woodland treatments so as to maintain

habitat conditions suitable for wildlife species and protect habitat qualities associated with

vegetation species such as five-needle pines. While private landowners do not have the same

requirements with regard to sensitive species as federal agencies, the threatened and endangered

status of grizzly bears and the lynx populations in the Dubois area will apply to all landowners

including in the Shoshone National Forest.

Over-the-counter and commercial wood product sales and removal is expected to continue in the

CIAA, but it will be minor in relation to forest and woodland stands that do not have any product

removal. The cumulative impacts in forested and woodland communities will be an increase in

early seral vegetative conditions that will be minor compared to the continued dominance of late

seral forest and woodland conditions.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to Vegetative Communities

from Surface-Disturbing Activities and Other

Management Actions
1318 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The actions of the USFS and the BIA will drive most impacts to forest and woodlands in the

CIAA. BLM management has little impact on forests in the CIAA. Pine beetle and other pests

are adversely impacting forest resources to the point that certain pine species have become BLM

sensitive species (limber pine) and have resulted in the re-listing of the grizzly bear under the

ESA. There would be virtually no difference in impacts among the alternatives regarding forest

management. Consequently, the cumulative impacts of non-BLM actions, while potentially

overwhelmingly adverse to forest resources, similarly would not vary by alternative.

Alternatives C and D provide the most potential benefit, cumulatively, to forest resources because

both allow active silviculture techniques. Alternative D provides management that could most

easily work cooperatively with the USFS and could maximize synergistic management. However,

funding is expected to decrease, and with no commercial market likely to develop, the alternatives

would result in similar cumulative impacts.

4.10.6. Cumulative Impacts to the Continental Divide National

Scenic Trail from Development Activities

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area

The cumulative impact area of analysis for the CDNST includes the foreground/middleground

zone (0 to 5 miles either side) of the trail within the Wyoming Basin ecoregion (Map 139).

The Wyoming Basin Ecoregion is a broad arid intermontane basin interrupted by

hills and low mountains and dominated by grasslands and shrublands. Nearly

surrounded by forest-covered mountains, the region is drier than the Northwestern

Great Plains (43) to the northeast and does not have the extensive cover of

pinyon-juniper woodland found in the Colorado Plateaus (20) to the south. Much

of the region is used for livestock grazing, although many areas lack sufficient

forage to support this activity. The region contains major natural gas and petroleum

producing fields. The Wyoming Basin also has extensive coal deposits along with

areas of trona, bentonite, clay, and uranium mining (EPA 2009e).

The CIAA was chosen because it represents a distinct visual and recreational opportunity along the

CDNST; therefore, this area marks a unique contribution to the trail system as a whole. Such areas

are vitally important to the trail purpose as emphasized in the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation study

commissioned by the enabling legislation of the CDNST (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 1976):

The primary purpose of this trail would be to provide a continuous, appealing

trail route, designed for the hiker and horseman, but compatible with other land

uses...[and] to provide hiking and horseback access to those lands where man’s

impact on the environment has not been adverse to a substantial degree and where

the environment remains relatively unaltered. Therefore, the protection of the land

resource must remain a paramount consideration in establishing and managing the

trail. There must be sufficient environmental controls to assure that the values for

which the trail is established are not jeopardized.... The basic goal of the trail is to

provide the hiker and rider an entrée to the diverse country along the Continental

Divide in a manner which will assure a high quality recreation experience while

maintaining a constant respect for the natural environment.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to the Continental Divide

National Scenic Trail from Development Activities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1319

Typical stressors contributing to potential cumulative impacts to the CDNST include man-made

intrusions into the viewshed and changes to the recreation environment. Man-made intrusions

into the viewshed, occurring primarily on BLM public land, occur as a result of actions to

support resource uses such as oil and gas development, wind-energy development, and ROW

corridors. Changes to the recreation environment that cause the area to move toward a more urban

environment include increases in motorized access and use, decreased naturalness, increased

facilities, and increased contacts with people and groups. Typically these changes result from the

same activities documented above, but can also result from actions in the recreation program (i.e.,

a new facility is developed to support a motorized vehicle play area in the trail corridor).

For analysis purposes, the CDNST in the Wyoming Basin has three distinct parts. These analysis

units were developed based on homogeneity in land ownership pattern, level of development

(existing and projected), and landscape characteristics (the form, line, color, and texture of land,

vegetation, water, and structures). The three distinct parts of the CDNST through the Wyoming

Basin are the Checkerboard Region, the Bairoil Region, and the Antelope Hills Region.

The Checkerboard Region encompasses the area from the point where the CDNST intersects

the Wyoming Basin/Southern Rockies ecoregion division north to the point where the CDNST

meets Mineral Exploration Road. This section of trail (approximately 54 miles) is in the Rawlins

planning area and intersects a region known as the checkerboard. This region has mixed public

and private lands that resemble the pattern on the board game. In this region, BLM management

is limited due to the large amount of private lands within the trail viewshed and the lack of

blocked areas of public land. Protections on this section of trail include a 1/8 mile CSU on

either side of the trail to maintain human health and safety; this prescription is applied only on

BLM-administered lands. Impacts to the Checkerboard Region are not expected to vary under the

alternatives because the entire segment is located outside of the planning area.

The Checkerboard Region of the CDNST is under intense pressure from resource uses, including

energy development associated with wind and natural gas. Projects underway that will be

within view and influence the character of the CDNST in this area include the Atlantic Rim Gas

Development and the Choke Cherry/Sierra Madre wind-energy development. It is also reasonable

to assume that the area’s high wind-energy potential will continue to attract new wind-energy

developments in the CDNST corridor, and further justified by the fact that the entire trail in this

region is currently within a project area with an approved meteorological tower (wind testing

tower) ROW. As a result, it has been projected that within the next 20 years, users of this portion

of the CDNST will be constantly viewing man-made visual intrusions associated with energy

development and transmission (Smith 2010).

The Bairoil Region encompasses the area of the CDNST from Mineral Exploration Road to

the Happy Springs oilfield. This section of trail (approximately 42 miles, 16 of which are in

the planning area) is heavily developed and affected by transmission corridors, oil and gas

development, and uranium mining. The Rawlins RMP applies a 1/8-mile buffer on both sides of

the trail to protect human health and safety.

It has been projected that over the next 20 years this portion of the CDNST will continue to

experience additional industrial development. Uranium mining in the area has experienced an

upward trend, and the area also contains moderate potential for oil and gas. The area also has high

wind-energy potential. New impacts to this section of the trail would be less under Alternative B

because some of this portion of the trail is closed to leasing because of its overlap with greater

sage-grouse Core Area. In addition, alternatives B, C, and D proposes a 1⁄4-mile protective

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to the Continental Divide

National Scenic Trail from Development Activities
1320 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

corridor on either side of the planning area portion of this trail. Such a corridor would ensure user

safety, but would not provide long-term protections for the visual resources and setting associated

with the trail. It is projected that the additive impact of the Rawlins RMP and Lander RMP

alternatives A, C, and D would result in the CDNST users intermittently encountering human

intrusions along this entire section of the trail.

The Antelope Hills Region encompasses the area of the CDNST from just out of view of the

Happy Springs oilfield to the Wyoming Basin/Middle Rocky Mountains ecoregion division. This

section of trail (approximately 60 miles, 56 of which are in the planning area) is pristine, with

little to no influences from man-made visual intrusions. This portion of trail provides the CDNST

visitors with a feeling of solitude while also traveling through a historic area with few modern

intrusions. The trail travels along a section of the Seminoe Cutoff of the Oregon/California

NHTs. The modifications that do exist along this trail are viewed for only a short period, do not

strongly contrast from the surrounding landscape, and, in the case of the South Pass Historic site,

contribute to the visitors experience.

Existing management of the CDNST in this area is not integrated or targeted to specifically benefit

the CDNST. Portions of the trail intersect the Lander Field Office NHT ACEC (1⁄4 mile either side

of the NHT) and South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC, as well as the Rock Springs Field Office

Wind River Slope SRMA and South Pass ACEC. As a result, the CDNST in the Rock Springs

planning area is not projected to have new visual intrusions into the viewshed. Alternative A will

allow for new visual intrusions into the viewshed of the CDNST, especially in the regions east of

the South Pass ACEC. These intrusions will primarily result from wind-energy development and

can be anticipated across 49 miles of this section of the CDNST. New visual intrusions in this

region of the Wyoming Basin CDNST would be highest under Alternative C due to increased

development that this alternative facilitates. Alternative B provides the most protections for the

CDNST in this area, and ensures no new visual intrusions into the trail viewshed. Alternative D is

similar to Alternative B, except that under Alternative D, new visual intrusions in the background

of the trail viewshed could may be infrequently seen by CDNST users. The background area is

outside this CIAA; therefore, impacts to this zone do not factor into the comparison of alternatives.

Table 4.55, “Wyoming Basin CDNST Management Miles by BLM Field Office” (p. 1321) lists

each segment and how much of that segment is managed by the various BLM field offices. While

the impacts to trail miles from Lander RMP management actions would vary by alternative,

potential impacts in the Rawlins and Rock Springs planning areas would not vary. Therefore,

impacts from the management detailed in the Rawlins and Rock Springs RMPs will be considered

an additive impact to all alternatives. That is, this management actions under this RMP could

directly impact 72 miles of the CDNST in the Wyoming Basin. This cumulative impacts analysis

also considers the additive impact of actions and decisions along the 77 miles of the Wyoming

Basin CDNST in the Rawlins and Rock Springs planning areas.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to the Continental Divide

National Scenic Trail from Development Activities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1321

Table 4.55. Wyoming Basin CDNST Management Miles by BLM Field Office

Segment (Length)

Lander Planning Area,

Miles(Percent of Segment)

Rawlins Planning Area,

Miles(Percent of Segment)

Rock Springs Planning

Area, Miles (Percent

of Segment)

Checkerboard

(54 Miles)

0

54

(100%)

0

Bairoil

(42 Miles)

17

(40%)

25

(60%)

0

Antelope Hills

(60 Miles)

58

(97%)

0

2

(3%)

Total

(156 Miles)

75

(48%)

79

(51%)

2

(1%)

Source: BLM 2012a

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CDNST Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

Analysis of Cumulative Impacts

Actions in the Rawlins and Rock Springs planning areas will not change by alternatives in this

document. Actions in the Rawlins planning area and the minimal protections on the CDNST

prescribed through the Rawlins RMP will result in 74 miles of the Wyoming Basin CDNST being

susceptible to human intrusions and disturbances. CDNST users will see these impacts as they

move from the southern Rockies to the Wyoming Basin ecoregion (Map 139). This section of trail

will provide users a rural recreation setting. Typically, a rural recreation setting is characterized as

having heavy motorized vehicle traffic, reduced naturalness, structures and facilities frequently

visible, and a high level of contacts with other people. It is projected that the visual resources

along these 74 miles of trail will be dominated by wind turbines, transmission corridors, gas

development facilities, and associated roads. Actions in the Rock Springs planning area and the

protections for the CDNST delineated in the Rock Springs RMP will prevent visual intrusions on

and recreation setting changes on 3 miles of Wyoming Basin CDNST.

Table 4.56, “Number of Miles of Wyoming Basin CDNST Projected to be Impacted by Human

Intrusion and Resource Uses” (p. 1321) summarizes the findings.

Table 4.56. Number of Miles of Wyoming Basin CDNST Projected to be Impacted by

Human Intrusion and Resource Uses

CDNST Area

(Trail Miles)

Alternative A

(miles)

Alternative B

(miles)

Alternative C

(miles)

Alternative D

(miles)

Checkerboard

(54)

54 54 54 54

Bairoil

(42)

42 19 42 42

Antelope Hills

(60)

49 0 60 0

Total

(149)

139 74 146 90

Source: BLM 2012a

CDNST Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

Alternative A, coupled with management in the Rawlins RMP would result in almost the entire

Wyoming Basin CDNST (93 percent of the trail) being converted to a rural recreation setting

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to the Continental Divide

National Scenic Trail from Development Activities
1322 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

with numerous visual intrusions. Under this alternative, the CDNST visitor would be within sight

of energy developments and utility corridors over almost the entire Wyoming Basin. Users will

be constantly on or near improved roads; within view of strongly dominant visual modifications

and facilities; in contact with other people; and consistently encountering motorized users. This

amount of impact will not allow the Wyoming Basin CDNST to meet the purpose of the trail

(as established in the enabling legislation).

As a result of decisions in the Rock Springs RMP and Alternative A, 10 miles of the Wyoming

Basin CDNST will be protected from visual intrusions and recreation setting change. This

section (from the South Pass ACEC to the Wyoming Basin boundary) would continue to provide

users with a middle-country recreation setting. Despite these protections, it is projected that

management under Alternative A would cause CDNST users to strongly remember the Wyoming

Basin and BLM Wyoming CDNST for the amount of energy development.

Alternative B would result in the least cumulative impact to the Wyoming Basin CDNST. This

alternative protects almost 50 percent of the Wyoming Basin CDNST from new development

by restricting energy impacts to the Rawlins portion of the CDNST. Under this alternative, the

Wyoming Basin CDNST would provide a balanced display of multiple uses and recreation

settings. The Rawlins portion would be developed for energy uses and provide a rural recreation

setting; the other portions would display wide-open spaces and a middle-country (sometimes back

country) recreation setting.

Cumulative impacts under Alternative C would be similar to impacts under Alternative A, except

that only the 3 miles of Wyoming Basin CDNST (managed by the Rock Springs Field Office)

would display an unchanged visual and recreation resource.

Cumulative impacts under Alternative D would result in 60 percent of the Wyoming Basin

CDNST trail affected by human intrusions and development. Importantly, most of this impact

would occur in the Checkerboard and Bairoil regions of the Wyoming Basin CDNST. These

regions are primarily influenced by the Rawlins RMP or existing human intrusions, and therefore

mark an ideal opportunity to provide the user with an opportunity to learn about these resource

uses. Therefore, cumulative impacts to the Wyoming Basin CDNST under this alternative would

be less than under alternatives A and C, but more than under Alternative B.

Alternative D provides for protections of the more pristine Antelope Hills Region of the CDNST,

or almost 40 percent of the CDNST through the Wyoming Basin. This portion of the CDNST

would remain unchanged and the recreation setting would continue to provide a middle-country

and sometimes back country recreation setting. Cumulative impacts under Alternative D would

result in a Wyoming Basin CDNST that is managed in a manner that meets the overall purposes,

need, and goal for the CDNST while also allowing for resource uses.

Under all alternatives, this section of the CDNST would continue to experience impacts from

similar activities.

4.10.7. Cumulative Impacts to National Historic Trails from

Development Activities

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to National Historic Trails from

Development Activities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1323

For the four Congressionally Designated NHTs (the Oregon, Mormon, California, and Pony

Express NHTs), the CIAA is divided into a general assessment area and a specific assessment

area (defined below).

General Assessment Area: The general assessment area is defined as the entire length of the four

NHTs, which spans from Missouri and Iowa across the west to Oregon and California. This area

is used as a general unit of analysis because impacts from actions throughout the United States are

expected to have incremental impacts to the NHT system as a whole.

The data used for the analysis of the general assessment area came from the NPS 1999

Comprehensive Management and Use Plan and Update for the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer,

California, and Pony Express National Historic Trails (NPS 1999). That plan identified the

routes of the NHTs, generally described the present conditions of the trails, and identified what

sections remained. The plan also designated particular remaining segments of the NHTs as “High

Potential Segments”: those that possess “above average scenic values or affording an opportunity

to vicariously share the experience of the original users of a historic route.” The entire NHT route

in the planning area (more than 90 miles) is part of one of these High Potential Segments, so it

can be reasonably compared to other High Potential Segments along the four NHTs. For the

analysis of the general assessment area, all High Potential Segments more than 25 miles long

were chosen to compare with the NHTs in the planning area.

Specific Assessment Area: The more specific assessment area is defined as the route of the NHTs

through Wyoming from Fort Laramie to near the Utah and Idaho state lines. Fort Laramie, in

southeastern Wyoming, was chosen because it lies near the beginning of the western high plains,

where the land begins to lift toward the slopes of the Rocky Mountains. It was also the place

where the pioneers left the easiest part of their westward journey. Once past Fort Laramie, the

NHTs pass through the high plains for more 400 miles and cross the Continental Divide. Finally,

as the pioneers neared the borders of present-day Utah or Idaho (depending on which trail they

were on), they began to encounter the mountains and valleys of the eastern Great Basin and

entered the next phase of their journey.

Again, the data used for the analysis of the specific assessment area again came from the NPS

1999 Comprehensive Management and Use Plan and Update for the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer,

California, and Pony Express National Historic Trails (NPS 1999). For this more specific

analysis, any High Potential Segment within the western high plains from Fort Laramie to near

the Utah or Idaho state lines was chosen to compare with the NHTs in the planning area.

General Assessment Area

Background: The original Oregon, Mormon, California, and Pony Express Trails spanned

thousands of miles over the central and western United States. During their heyday, these trails

were the primary overland routes for some 500,000 American settlers and fortune seekers

traveling west in the mid 1800s. The combined efforts of all of these emigrants helped secure the

lands of the far and intermountain west for the United States, and enabled our nation to extend

from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean.

The four trails covered more 11,000 miles on their way to Oregon, California, Utah, and points

between. First established in the 1840s, these trails were heavily used by emigrants, entrepreneurs,

and fortune seekers until around 1870. Afterward, the same trails were mostly used for commerce

and more local traffic, and eventually many of these trails were improved, built upon, or even

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to National Historic Trails

from Development Activities
1324 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

paved. It was not until the 1960s that a widespread appreciation of these historic routes began to

develop, and a movement to preserve what was left of them began to build momentum.

In 1968, the National Trails System Act was passed to establish and develop a National Scenic,

Historic, and Recreational Trails System across the nation. The Oregon and Mormon Pioneer

NHTs, both of which run through the planning area, were the first two NHTs designated through

this act. Later, the California and Pony Express trails were designated as NHTs, and these trails

also run through the planning area in the same vicinity as the Oregon and Mormon Pioneer trails.

The NPS was given the task of identifying the historic routes and remaining vestiges of these

four emigrant trails. They found that approximately 25 percent of the original 11,400 miles of

the Oregon, Mormon, California, and Pony Express Trails remained intact or somewhat intact.

These intact portions range from short pieces of undamaged trail ruts surrounded by modern

developments to long stretches of intact or somewhat intact trail. The NPS was then asked to

identify segments of these NHTs the public could best visit and appreciate. These segments

were called High Potential Segments, and the NPS put forward recommendations for their

management and use.

Some of these High Potential Segments are of very high quality, with long stretches of largely

undisturbed trail traces and surrounding landscapes that look much like they did in the mid

1800s. Others have more disturbances on them or are shorter, but still qualify as High Potential

Segments because of their recreational potential or their high scenic quality. For this more general

portion of the analysis, the BLM has chosen High Potential Segments 25 or more miles long

because shorter segments tend to be surrounded by more impacts and have more impediments

to useful management. Table 4.57, “High Potential Trail Segments in the General Assessment

Area” (p. 1324) lists these High Potential Segments and their qualities.

Table 4.57. High Potential Trail Segments in the General Assessment Area

Overall Quality

Segment

Name

Segment

Location

Length

(Miles)

Trail(s)

Number of

Associated

High

Potential

Sites

Primary

Land

Owner/

Manager

Ruts/

Swales

Historic

Setting

Combined

South Pass

Central and

Western

Wyoming

145

Oregon,

Mormon,

California,

Pony

Express

8 BLM Good to

excellent

Excellent Excellent

Big Sandy

to Green

River

Western

Wyoming

50

Oregon,

Mormon,

California,

Pony

Express

1 BLM Fair to good

Good to

excellent

Good

Anderson

Ridge to

Buckskin

Crossing

Western

Wyoming

27 California 0 BLM Good to

excellent

Excellent

Good to

excellent

North

Piney

Creek to

Smiths

Fork

Western

Wyoming

42 California 0 USFS Good Excellent

Good to

excellent

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to National Historic Trails from

Development Activities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1325

Overall Quality

Segment

Name

Segment

Location

Length

(Miles)

Trail(s)

Number of

Associated

High

Potential

Sites

Primary

Land

Owner/

Manager

Ruts/

Swales

Historic

Setting

Combined

Bear River

Divide

Western

Wyoming

31

Oregon,

California

0 BLM Good to

excellent

Excellent Excellent

Fort

Bridger to

Cache Cave

Southwestern

Wyoming

44

Mormon,

California,

Pony

Express

3 Private Good Fair to good Good

Castle

Rock to

This is the

Place

Northern

Utah

51

Mormon,

California,

Pony

Express

2 Private Fair Fair Fair

Fairfield

to Ruby

Valley

Western

Utah and

Eastern

Nevada

217

Pony

Express

5 BLM Fair to

excellent

Excellent

Good to

excellent

Grantsville

to Franklin

River

Western

Utah and

Eastern

Nevada

177 California 18 BLM Good

Good to

excellent

Good to

excellent

Curlew

Valley to

Salt Lake

Cutoff Jct

Northern

Utah and

Southern

Idaho

45 California 3 Private Fair to good Fair to good

Fair to

good

Granite

Pass to

Humboldt

River

Southern Idaho,

Northwestern Utah,

and Northeastern

Nevada

98 California 6 BLM Fair to

excellent

Good to

excellent

Good to

excellent

Auburn to

Wayan

Western

Wyoming

and Eastern

Idaho

25 California 0 USFS Good Good Good

Arbon

Valley to

Sublette

Reservoir

Southern

Idaho

25 California 2

BLM and

USFS

Good to

excellent

Good to

excellent

Good to

excellent

Cascade

Mountain

Crossing

Southern

Oregon

30 California 4

BLM and

USFS

Good to

excellent

Good to

excellent

Good to

excellent

Overland

Canyon to

Simpson

Park

Station

Eastern

Nevada

84

Pony

Express

0 BLM Good to

excellent

Excellent

Good to

excellent

Humboldt

Sink to

Dayton

Western

Nevada

81 California 2

BLM and

State of

Nevada

Fair Fair to good

Fair to

good

Genoa

to Union

House

Western

Nevada

and Eastern

California

72 California 15 USFS Fair Fair Fair

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to National Historic Trails

from Development Activities
1326 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Overall Quality

Segment

Name

Segment

Location

Length

(Miles)

Trail(s)

Number of

Associated

High

Potential

Sites

Primary

Land

Owner/

Manager

Ruts/

Swales

Historic

Setting

Combined

Humboldt

Sink to

Fernley

Western

Nevada

37 California 1

BLM and

private

Fair Fair Fair

Verdi to

Steephollow Crossing

Eastern

California

74 California 7 USFS Fair to good Fair Fair

Bucks

Summit

to Lake

Oroville

Eastern

California

34 California 0

USFS and

private

Fair to good Fair Fair

Lassen

Meadows

to Pothole

Springs

Northwestern Nevada

and Northeastern California

206 California 13

BLM and

USFS

Excellent Excellent Excellent

1856

Nobles

Trail

Junction

to Granite

Creek

Western

Nevada

30 California 1 BLM Good Fair to good Good

Deep Hole

Springs

to Smoke

Creek

Canyon

Western

Nevada

26 miles California 1 BLM Good Fair to good Good

Butte

Creek to

Manzanita

Chute

Eastern

California

25 California 1

USFS and

National

Park

Service

Fair to good

Fair to

excellent

Good to

excellent

Pit River

to Feather

Lake

Eastern

California

46 California 2 USFS Fair to good Fair to good

Fair to

good

Deer Creek

Meadows

to Acorn

Hollow

Eastern

California

46 California 4

USFS and

private

Fair to good

Fair to

excellent

Fair to

good

North Trail Western

Idaho

83 Oregon 8 BLM Good to

excellent

Good Good

Barlow

Road

Northern

Oregon

42 Oregon 6 USFS Good Excellent

Good to

excellent

Source: NPS 1999

BLM Bureau of Land Management

USFS United States Forest Service

Analysis of Cumulative Impacts – General Assessment Area

As Table 4.57, “High Potential Trail Segments in the General Assessment Area” (p. 1324) shows,

most of the best-quality High Potential Segments are on public lands managed by the BLM or

the USFS. This is logical, because these agencies have been given the responsibility to manage

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to National Historic Trails from

Development Activities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1327

and protect these NHTs for several decades. Other land managing agencies, such as states or

counties, might or might not have trail protection as a priority. Privately owned lands tend to be

managed based on other factors, including agricultural, residential, and commercial uses, and

long-preserved trails can quickly become threatened if these other uses become dominant. It is

generally true that the NHTs are best protected by entities who have laws encouraging protection

of trails, and it is also true that entities with other priorities do not tend to protect historic trails as

well.

In addition, almost all of the miles of excellent- or good-to-excellent condition High Potential

Segments (91 percent) are in just three areas of the west – the plains of central and western

Wyoming, the deserts of western Utah and eastern Nevada, and the deserts of northwestern

Nevada. Three of these segments (covering more than 245 miles) are in Wyoming; two segments

(covering almost 580 miles) are in western Utah/eastern Nevada, and one segment (covering a

little more than 200 miles) is in northwestern Nevada.

One of these excellent-condition segments is the South Pass High Potential Segment, and the

complete NHT route in the planning area is in this High Potential Segment. The South Pass High

Potential Segment begins in the Casper planning area, just east of the Lander planning area,

and ends in the Rock Springs planning area near Farson; approximately 90 of the 145 miles of

the South Pass High Potential Segment are in the Lander planning area. The South Pass High

Potential Segment is equal to or better in quality than any of the other excellent segments in

Wyoming, Utah, or Nevada, because it not only has excellent historic settings, it can also be

traveled on two-track roads on or near original ruts or swales for most of its length.

Most types of development adversely impact the historical settings of the trails, and commercial

wind-energy development is now considered the most adverse. This is due to the very large size

of the turbines, the visual impact of which is exacerbated by lighting mandated for aircraft safety,

and associated transmission lines that can contrast with the visual and historical setting of the

trails, even at a great distance. Pressures to develop wind energy along High Potential Segments

are present on the Fairfield-to-Ruby Valley and the Fort Bridger-to-Cache Cave segments (where

wind farms have already been permitted), and the Anderson Ridge-to-Buckskin Crossing, North

Piney Creek-to-Smiths Fork, Bear River Divide, Curlew Valley-to-Salt Lake Cutoff Junction,

Granite Pass to Humboldt River and Barlow Road segments, where high wind-energy potential

has been identified. High wind-energy potential has also been identified along the South Pass

High Potential Segment; several wind-energy development companies have applied for leases on

and around this segment, and several more companies have expressed interest in the area.

Development of transmission line and pipeline developments along the NHTs is also a concern.

Segments in southwestern Wyoming, western Utah, Nevada, southern Idaho, and northeastern

California have been impacted or are threatened by major utility corridors. The South Pass High

Potential Segment is also threatened by transmission line and pipeline development. Since the

1980s, major transmission and/or pipelines have proposed to cross the segment, and these types of

proposals are expected to increase in the future.

If development is allowed along a highly pristine NHT segment such as South Pass, then

developers will be encouraged to press for development along other high quality segments.

Conversely, if development is restricted in order to maintain South Pass Segment's historical

settings, then other high quality segment managers could use the same rationales for protection

of settings.

Specific Assessment Area

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to National Historic Trails

from Development Activities
1328 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The specific assessment area for NHTs is the route of the NHTs from Fort Laramie to near

the Utah and Idaho state lines. This area represents a section of the trails that the emigrants

themselves identified; they had just left the easiest part of their journey and had now entered

the almost 400-mile long trek across the high plains of Wyoming. The area's geology strongly

influenced the path taken because it followed the availability of water and the gradual slopes up to

and over the Continental Divide. Finally, as the pioneers neared the borders of present-day Utah

or Idaho (depending on which trail they were on), they encountered the mountains and valleys of

the eastern Great Basin and entered the next phase of their journey.

The specific assessment area encompasses High Potential Segments in the Casper, Lander, Rock

Springs, Pinedale, and Kemmerer planning areas, and the USFS Bridger-Teton National Forest.

The assessment area includes the High Potential Segments of Fort Laramie to Warm Springs,

Prospect Hill, South Pass, Big Sandy to Green River, Anderson Ridge to Buckskin Crossing,

North Piney Creek to Smith’s Fork, Bear River Divide, and Fort Bridger to Cache Cave. It does

not include the Auburn to Wayan High Potential Segment because this segment is considered to

have left the western high plains and is instead on the extreme eastern edge of the Great Basin.

All High Potential Segments, not just those 25 miles and longer, were included in the analysis

of the specific assessment area. Table 4.58, “High Potential Trail Segments in the Specific

Assessment Area” (p. 1328) lists and describes these segments.

Table 4.58. High Potential Trail Segments in the Specific Assessment Area

Overall Quality

Segment

Name

Segment

Location

Length

(Miles)

Trail(s)

Number of

Associated

High

Potential

Sites

Primary

Land

Owner/

Manager

Ruts/

Swales

Historic

Setting

Combined

Fort

Laramie

to Warm

Springs

Southeastern

Wyoming

14

Oregon,

Mormon,

California,

Pony

Express

4 Private

Good to

excellent

Fair to good Good

Prospect

Hill

Central

Wyoming

3

Oregon,

Mormon,

California,

Pony

Express

2 BLM Fair to good Fair to good

Fair to

good

South Pass

Central and

Western

Wyoming

145

Oregon,

Mormon,

California,

Pony

Express

8 BLM Good to

excellent

Excellent Excellent

Big Sandy

to Green

River

Western

Wyoming

50

Oregon,

Mormon,

California,

Pony

Express

1 BLM Fair to good

Good to

excellent

Good

Anderson

Ridge to

Buckskin

Crossing

Western

Wyoming

27 California 0 BLM Good to

excellent

Excellent

Good to

excellent

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to National Historic Trails from

Development Activities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1329

Overall Quality

Segment

Name

Segment

Location

Length

(Miles)

Trail(s)

Number of

Associated

High

Potential

Sites

Primary

Land

Owner/

Manager

Ruts/

Swales

Historic

Setting

Combined

North

Piney

Creek to

Smiths

Fork

Western

Wyoming

42 California 0 USFS Good Excellent

Good to

excellent

Bear River

Divide

Western

Wyoming

31

Oregon,

California

0 BLM Good to

excellent

Excellent Excellent

Fort

Bridger to

Cache Cave

Southwestern

Wyoming

44

Mormon,

California,

Pony

Express

3 Private Fair to good Fair to good Good

Source: NPS 1999

BLM Bureau of Land Management

USFS United States Forest Service

Two High Potential Segments are rated as excellent in overall quality — the South Pass Segment

and the Bear River Divide Segment. Both of these segments have outstanding historical settings,

and the condition of their ruts and swales are mostly quite good. The rest of the High Potential

Segments range from: good to excellent (two segments); good (three segments); and fair to good

(one segment). Short narratives on each follow:

Fort Laramie to Warm Springs Segment: This 14-mile long segment is predominantly privately

owned, with some National Guard- and NPS-managed lands. Currently in good condition, this

segment is generally classified as range land. However, because it is mostly in private ownership,

it is subject to changes in ownership and use, and its good-condition status could change at

any time.

Prospect Hill Segment: This 3-mile long segment is predominantly BLM-administered land, but

has some state and private lands around it. It is in fair to good condition, and has been affected

by pipeline and transmission line development in the past. Recent BLM management decisions

should help to reduce impacts to this site by requiring VRM limits out to 3 miles on each side

of the segment.

South Pass Segment: This 145-mile long segment is predominantly BLM-administered land, and

is in excellent condition. The NPS described the South Pass segment in these words: “The first

cross-country segment of the Oregon Trail recommended in this report is also one of the very

best stretches of the Oregon Trail left in any of the six states through which the trail passes. The

South Pass segment, which extends from Independence Rock to just west of Parting of the Ways,

contains 125 miles of the most unspoiled terrain over which the Oregon Trail passes” (NPS

1981).” And, “The quality of the resources and the visual experience make South Pass one of the

most impressive segments on the entire trail...(NPS 1999).”

As described above, in the 1987 RMP, the planning area section of the South Pass Segment is

only minimally protected by BLM management decisions that restrict development within 1⁄4 mile

on each side of the trail. On the Rock Springs section of the segment, part is protected by a 3 mile

on each side ACEC, and part is protected by a 1⁄4 mile on each side zone.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to National Historic Trails

from Development Activities
1330 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Big Sandy to Green River Segment: This 50-mile long segment is also mostly BLM-administered,

and is in good condition. A paved highway runs along the segment, but the setting is mostly

intact. A 1⁄4 mile on each side protection corridor minimally protects this segment.

Anderson Ridge to Buckskin Crossing Segment: This 27-mile long segment is mostly

BLM-administered land, and in good to excellent condition. A county road runs over or along

approximately half the segment, but the setting is mostly intact. Management decisions include

surface restrictions along the mountain flanks where the segment runs, and a 1 mile on each

side restriction is in place.

North Piney Creek to Smith’s Fork Segment: This stretch of trail runs over private, BLM, and

USFS lands in the western part of Wyoming. The 42-mile long segment is mostly on a county

road, but the setting is almost pristine. Currently, the segment is minimally protected by BLM

management decisions that restrict development within 1⁄4 mile on each side of the trail.

Bear River Divide Segment: This 31-mile long segment is mostly BLM-administered in its

northern half and is in checkerboard (alternating private and BLM) in its southern half. The

northern half is in excellent condition, and the southern half is in good condition, with part of

it upgraded into an oil well access road. Management decisions include surface restrictions

of 1 mile on each side of the trail.

Fort Bridger to Cache Cave Segment: This section of trail is mostly on private land in a

checkerboard land ownership pattern. This 44-mile long segment has been affected by a large

wind-energy development, and private lands have been altered by development in some areas.

The scattered BLM-administered lands have restrictions to protect the historic settings, but

wind-energy development on private lands is expected to continue.

The above data indicate that segments on public land generally are better preserved than those

on non-public lands; this would be expected because federal agencies have been given the

responsibility to manage and protect important parts of these NHTs for several decades. Other

landowning agencies, such as states or counties, might or might not have trail protection as a

priority. Privately owned lands tend to be managed based on other factors, including agricultural,

residential, and commercial uses, and long-protected trails can quickly become threatened if

these other uses become dominant.

Analysis of Cumulative Impacts – Specific Assessment Area

As discussed above, development on or around the trails has the potential to adversely impact

the physical remnants of the trails and their historical settings. The degree of impact is directly

related to proximity to the trails and extent of development.

As shown on Map 140, the Specific Assessment Areas are generally held in private ownership in

the portion of the trails east of the planning area. As discussed above for greater sage-grouse and

the CDNST, there are few limitations on development of private lands. Accordingly, development

to the east of the planning area can be anticipated to adversely impact the historical setting of

the trail segments in the area. There is high wind-energy potential, and wind energy (along with

uranium and oil and gas) is being developed in the Casper planning area. The trend for historical

setting for the portion of the trails from Fort Laramie to Independence Rock will likely continue

downward, particularly if the Pathfinder and Black Mountain Wind-Energy Development projects

in the Casper planning area progress beyond their current testing activities.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to National Historic Trails from

Development Activities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1331

As with the CDNST, the portion of the NHT Specific Assessment Areas in the Rock Springs,

Kemmerer, and Pinedale planning areas have protections that are likely to beneficially impact

the trails within a range of 1⁄4 to 3 miles, but are also subject to adverse impacts associated with

mineral and wind-energy development. As discussed above, increased oil or gas development is

likely in all BLM planning areas reviewed here, with intense development in certain areas. While

some of this development might be hidden from view, much of it will not, particularly in the areas

of moderate and high potential for oil or gas to the west of the Lander planning area.

While some of the development and adverse impacts will be limited by greater sage-grouse Core

Area management, segments of the trails pass through or are adjacent to non-Core Area. This

development also would adversely impact trails, and has led to the Specific Assessment Areas

being fragmented rather than in a continuous segment, as occurs in the South Pass segment

through the planning area.

The landscape-level development identified above for greater sage-grouse will adversely impact

the historical setting of the trails. When combined with the different management of NHTs under

the alternatives, the following cumulative impacts would result:

Alternatives A and C: The greatest threats to the NHTs in the planning area include

wind-energy development, transmission lines, and pipelines. If development along the

NHTs on BLM-administered lands occurs, it will likely extend into private or state lands.

Similarly, development on state or private lands will likely lead to the need for ROWs across

BLM-administered lands.

Lands along portions of the South Pass High Potential Segment have high potential for

wind-energy development. Wind energy companies have shown interest in lands along the NHTs

in the planning area by setting up meteorological towers on private lands and by applying for

meteorological-tower locations on BLM-administered lands. At present, the Lander Field Office

has not approved meteorological towers close to the trails. With alternatives A and C protecting

the NHTs only out to 1⁄4 mile on each side, wind farms could be present in viable wind locations

near the NHTs outside of this corridor, resulting in major impacts to their historical integrity. The

cumulative adverse impacts of this kind of development on a High Potential Segment such as

South Pass would be major.

Wind-energy development along the segment would necessitate power transmission line

construction and expansion to service wind farms, which would further impact the integrity

of the trails. Like wind farms, transmission lines are highly visible and would result in major

adverse impacts to the historical settings of the NHTs. Pipeline and transmission line projects

not associated with wind farms would be likely to affect the South Pass segment. Alternative A

does not specify corridors where transmission lines or pipelines would be clustered, so they could

be proposed on intact sections of the trail, further degrading the NHTs. Alternative C specifies

preferred corridor locations; however, most of the planning area is also open to major ROWs.

Other resource uses along the NHTs in the planning area are not reasonably foreseeable as

high-level threats. These other uses include oil and gas exploration, locatable minerals and

phosphate mining, geophysical exploration, mineral materials disposals, and major ROW actions.

However, alternatives A and C would give minimal protection from new threats, and unforeseen

increases in developments could adversely impact the NHTs.

Alternatives A and C would result in cumulative adverse impacts to other trail segments in this

region. Allowing development along the NHTs in the planning area would encourage developers

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts to National Historic Trails

from Development Activities
1332 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

to propose projects along other segments where NHT protection is minimal or ambiguous. These

segments could include the Prospect Hill segment, portions of the South Pass segment, Big

Sandy to Green River segment, the North Piney Creek to Smith’s Fork segment, and portions

of the Bear River Divide segment.

Alternatives B and D: Under alternatives B and D, development along the NHTs on

BLM-administered lands will be restricted.

Alternatives B and D restrict wind-energy development on BLM-administered lands out to 5

miles either side of the NHTs, and require BLM-permitted wind farms past 5 miles to be hidden

or to meet VRM categories. While development of wind-energy resources is always possible on

private or state lands on or near the NHTs, Alternative B or D would ensure that these projects

would not physically expand onto adjacent BLM-administered lands. This scenario would limit

the interest in building large wind farms on BLM-administered lands in the South Pass segment,

and further protect the NHTs from new disturbances and impacts. The trails in the planning area

would continue to be some of the best remaining NHTs in the western United States.

Alternatives B and D limit major utility (pipeline and transmission lines) along the NHTs to

designated corridors. Transmission lines or pipelines that have to cross the NHTs will be

clustered, which would confine their impacts to designated areas adversely affected by earlier

lines. Clustered transmission lines would mean fewer highly visible impacts on the historical

settings of the NHTs.

Other resource uses along the NHTs in the planning area are expected, but are not currently seen

as high-level threats. These other uses include oil and gas exploration, locatable minerals and

phosphate mining, geophysical exploration, mineral materials disposals, and major ROW actions.

Alternatives B and D have been designed to shield the NHTs from unforeseen threats, and the

NHTs would be mostly protected from adverse impacts.

Alternative B or Alternative D could result in cumulative beneficial impacts to other trail segments

in this region. Upcoming RMPs could look to this RMP for guidance and ideas about how to best

manage the NHTs while still allowing development that would not adversely impact the NHTs.

4.11. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

NEPA section 102(2)(C) and section 1502.16 of the CEQ NEPA implementing regulations require

that the discussion of environmental consequences include a description of “...any irreversible

or irretrievable commitment of resources which would be involved in the proposal should it be

implemented.” An irreversible commitment of a resource is one that cannot be reversed or cannot

be renewed within a reasonable timeframe. Extinction of a species or disturbance to cultural

resources would constitute irreversible impacts, as would extraction of sand, gravel, or oil or gas

because these salable minerals cannot be renewed in the ground within a reasonable timeframe.

An irretrievable commitment of a resource occurs when the resource or its use is lost for a some

period. For example, a decision not to treat juniper encroachment into adjacent sagebrush habitat

results in the irretrievable loss of forage production from the grassland community. This action is

not irreversible because a treatment applied to the encroaching juniper could restore the forage

production of the sagebrush habitat.

The decision to select one of the four alternatives described in this Proposed RMP and Final EIS

does not constitute an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources because the decision

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of

Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1333

does not authorize implementation-level activities. Instead, decisions made under the selected

alternative serve to guide future actions and subsequent site-specific decisions. Following the

signing of the ROD for the RMP revision, the BLM will develop and implement implementation

plans (activity- or project-specific). Implementation decisions require appropriate project-specific

planning and NEPA analysis, and constitute BLM final approval authorizing on-the-ground

activities to proceed.

Assuming the BLM selects one of the action alternatives, and that subsequent implementation

decisions authorize activity- or project-specific plans, some irreversible and irretrievable

commitment of resources would occur. However, the specific nature and extent of the impacts

cannot be clearly defined because the location, scale, timing, rate of implementation, and

relationship to other actions is currently unknown. Such impacts can be better assessed after

site-specific implementation, including implementation of mitigation measures and assessment of

the efficacy of the mitigation measures.

Even without the specifics of implementation plans, the likelihood of irreversible and irretrievable

impacts to some resources can be estimated. Impacts from some actions can be both irreversible

and irretrievable for some resources. Resources most likely to be affected include minerals

and energy development; vegetation, including forests, forest products, and INNS; fish and

wildlife and their habitats; soils; water; visual resources; wilderness; cultural resources; and

paleontological resources. The management actions most likely to result in irreversible and/or

irretrievable impacts include those related to development and surface disturbance such as mineral

extraction, energy development, timber harvesting/silviculture treatments, livestock grazing,

and trails and travel management.

In addition, the impacts of management actions are interrelated and generally affect multiple

resources concurrently. For example, mineral extraction would result in an irreversible and

irretrievable loss of those minerals. Impacts to vegetation, associated wildlife habitat, and

livestock grazing from minerals extraction would be irretrievable and potentially irreversible if

reclamation efforts prove unsuccessful. Irreversible impacts to soils and water quality could

occur, depending on the implementation of mitigation measures and their efficacy. Visual

resources would be irretrievably affected during extraction activities, but the effects would not

necessarily be irreversible. If the extraction activities occurred near a wilderness area or lands

with wilderness characteristics, those qualities could be irretrievably lost during extraction

and such impacts could be irreversible. Any cultural or paleontological resources affected by

extraction would be irretrievably and irreversibly lost. However, all of these impacts would be

localized and could be minimized through effective mitigation.

4.12. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

NEPA section 102(C) also mandates disclosure of “any adverse environmental effects which

cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented.” These are impacts for which there are no

mitigation measures or impacts that remain even after the implementation of mitigation measures.

Implementation of the RMP and subsequent activity- or project-specific plan implementation

would result in unavoidable adverse impacts to some resources. Chapter 4 describes the potential

impacts of implementing the RMP, summarized here. As discussed under the preceding section,

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources, the specific nature and extent of

implementation-level impacts cannot be clearly defined due to unknowns regarding site-specific

implementation and associated mitigation measures.

February 2013

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
1334 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

In general, development and surface-disturbing activities, including those from mineral extraction,

energy development, vegetative treatments or timber harvesting, OHV use, and trails and travel

management would result in unavoidable adverse impacts, including soil compaction and

erosion, loss of vegetative cover, spread of INNS, disturbance to and displacement of wildlife,

visual intrusions on the landscape, and potential loss of cultural or paleontological resources.

Conversely, proposed restrictions on some activities such as OHV use, energy development, and

livestock grazing intended to protect sensitive resources and resource values would result in

unavoidable adverse impacts to some users, operators, and permittees by limiting their ability to

use public lands and potentially increasing their operating costs.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences February 2013
Chapter 5. Public Involvement,

Consultation, and Coordination
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1337

5.1. Introduction

Public involvement, consultation, and coordination was initiated prior to, and occurred

throughout, preparation of the Lander Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision and associated

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) incorporated

public involvement, consultation, and coordination through public meetings, informal meetings,

individual contacts, news releases, newsletters, workshops, a planning website, and the Federal

Register. This chapter describes the public involvement process, as well as other key consultation

and coordination activities undertaken to prepare the EIS in support of the RMP revision.

The BLM decision-making process is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations

implementing NEPA, and the United States (U.S.) Department of the Interior (DOI) and BLM

policies and procedures implementing NEPA. NEPA and the associated regulatory and policy

framework require that all federal agencies involve the interested public and potentially affected

parties in their decision-making, consider reasonable alternatives to proposed actions, and prepare

environmental documents that disclose the potential impacts of proposed actions and alternatives.

A Notice of Intent (NOI) published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2007, formally

announced the BLM’s intent to revise the existing plan and prepare the associated EIS. The

NOI initiated the scoping process and invited participation of affected and interested agencies,

organizations, and members of the public in determining the scope and issues to be addressed

by alternatives and analyzed in the EIS. The BLM solicited additional public involvement

at multiple meetings, including an open house and cooperating agency workshops, to help

identify issues to be addressed in developing a full range of land management alternatives.

Subsequent to the release of the Draft RMP and EIS on September 9, 2011, the BLM held three

commenting workshops in September 2011 and five public meetings in October 2011 to discuss

the commenting process, respond to questions, and solicit comments on the Draft RMP and EIS.

Table 5.1, “Public Involvement, Coordination, and Consultation Events” (p. 1337) lists public

involvement, coordination, and consultation events.

Table 5.1. Public Involvement, Coordination, and Consultation Events

Date Location Event Type

March 19, 2007 Riverton, Wyoming Public Scoping Meeting Public Meeting

March 20, 2007 Shoshoni, Wyoming Public Scoping Meeting Public Meeting

March 21, 2007 Jeffrey City, Wyoming Public Scoping Meeting Public Meeting

March 22, 2007 Dubois, Wyoming Public Scoping Meeting Public Meeting

March 23, 2007 Lander, Wyoming Public Scoping Meeting Public Meeting

June 13, 2007 Lander, Wyoming Socioeconomic Meeting Cooperating Agency

Meeting

August 14, 2007 Lander, Wyoming Socioeconomic Meeting Cooperating Agency

Meeting

November 5, 2007 Lander, Wyoming Travel Management Meeting Public Meeting

November 6, 2007 Lander, Wyoming Travel Management Meeting Public Meeting

November 7, 2007 Dubois, Wyoming Travel Management Meeting Public Meeting

November 8, 2007 Dubois, Wyoming Travel Management Meeting Public Meeting

January 24, 2008 Riverton, Wyoming Travel Management Meeting Public Meeting

March 18 – 20, 2008 Lander, Wyoming Goals and Objectives

Development Workshop

Cooperating Agency

Workshop

May 21 – 23, 2008 Lander, Wyoming Range of Alternatives

Development Workshop

Cooperating Agency

Workshop

February 2013

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation,

and Coordination

Introduction
1338 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Date Location Event Type

June 18 – 20, 2008 Lander, Wyoming Range of Alternatives

Development Workshop

Cooperating Agency

Workshop

August 20 – 21, 2008 Lander, Wyoming Range of Alternatives

Development Workshop

Cooperating Agency

Workshop

September 24 – 25, 2008 Lander, Wyoming Range of Alternatives

Development Workshop

Cooperating Agency

Workshop

December 3 – 5, 2008 Lander, Wyoming Range of Alternatives

Development Workshop

Cooperating Agency

Workshop

January 21 – 23, 2009 Lander, Wyoming Range of Alternatives

Development Workshop

Cooperating Agency

Workshop

February 18 – 20, 2009 Lander, Wyoming Range of Alternatives

Development Workshop

Cooperating Agency

Workshop

December 9, 2009 Lander, Wyoming Range of Alternatives

Development Workshop

Cooperating Agency

Workshop

March 31, 2010 Lander, Wyoming Open House Public Meeting

May 12 – 14, 2010 Lander, Wyoming Preferred Alternative

Development Workshop

Cooperating Agency

Workshop

September 19, 2011 Lander, Wyoming Commenting Workshop Public Meeting

September 20, 2011 Riverton, Wyoming Commenting Workshop Public Meeting

September 21, 2011 Dubois, Wyoming Commenting Workshop Public Meeting

October 24, 2011 Shoshoni, Wyoming Draft RMP and EIS Public

Meeting

Public Meeting

October 25, 2011 Lander, Wyoming Draft RMP and EIS Public

Meeting

Public Meeting

October 26, 2011 Dubois, Wyoming Draft RMP and EIS Public

Meeting

Public Meeting

October 27, 2011 Riverton, Wyoming Draft RMP and EIS Public

Meeting

Public Meeting

October 28, 2011 Jeffrey City, Wyoming Draft RMP and EIS Public

Meeting

Public Meeting

RMP Resource Management Plan

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

5.2. Public Involvement

In accordance with CEQ scoping guidance, the BLM provided opportunities for public

involvement as an integral part of revising the RMP and preparing the EIS. CEQ scoping guidance

(1981) defines scoping as the process by which lead agencies solicit input from the public and

interested agencies on the nature and extent of issues and impacts to be addressed and the methods

by which they will be evaluated. The scoping comment summary report, which summarizes

comments received during the scoping process, is available on the Lander RMP website at

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/lander/docs.html.

The intent of the scoping process is to provide an opportunity for the public, tribes, other

government agencies, and interest groups to learn about the project and provide input on the

planning issues, impacts, and potential alternatives that will be addressed in the EIS, and the

extent to which those issues will be analyzed. In general, public involvement during scoping

assists the agency through the following:

● Broadening the information base for decision-making

● Informing the public about the EIS and proposed RMP and the potential impacts associated

with various management decisions

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation, and

Coordination

Public Involvement February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1339

● Ensuring public needs and viewpoints are brought to the attention of the agency

● Determining the scope and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS

5.2.1. Scoping Period

The scoping period for the Lander RMP revision began with the publication of the NOI in the

Federal Register on February 13, 2007 and ended on April 16, 2007. The scoping period provides

an opportunity for the public to identify potential planning issues and concerns associated with

the RMP and EIS. Information obtained by the BLM during scoping is combined with issues

identified by the agencies to form the scope of the EIS.

Public Notification of Scoping

The BLM issued a news release to local media on February 13, 2007, describing the Lander

RMP revision, and issued a subsequent news release on March 2, 2007, listing the time, date,

and location of the public scoping meetings. Copies of the news releases went out to numerous

media outlets within and outside the planning area. The news releases were also posted on the

Lander RMP website.

In addition to news releases and other notifications from the BLM regarding the scoping process,

some members of the public received notification from other sources. Several articles and

news bulletins regarding some aspect of the RMP process were published in local newspapers.

Many of the articles listed the dates for the scoping period and the dates, times, and locations

of public scoping meetings.

The Lander RMP website provides background information on the project, a description of the

scoping process and meeting locations, instructions on how to submit comments, and copies of

public information documents such as the NOI and the 1987 Lander RMP. The website is one of

the methods used to communicate project news and updates to the public. The website can be

accessed at: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/lander.html.

Scoping Meetings

During the week of March 19, 2007, the BLM hosted scoping meetings in five locations

across the planning area. Table 5.1, “Public Involvement, Coordination, and Consultation

Events” (p. 1337) lists the scoping meeting locations and dates. The five public scoping meetings

provided the public with an opportunity to learn and ask questions about the project, the planning

process, and to submit their issues and concerns to the BLM. The BLM chose an open house

format to encourage broader participation, to allow attendees to learn about the project at their own

pace, and to enable attendees to ask questions of BLM representatives in an informal one-on-one

setting. The BLM also provided handouts and presented displays at each scoping meeting.

The BLM encouraged meeting attendees to comment by submitting written comment forms

(either at the meetings or via U.S. Postal Service) or by sending an e-mail. Comment sheets

were available to attendees at all meetings.

5.2.2. Public Comment Period on the Draft RMP and EIS

A notice of availability announcing the release of the Draft RMP and EIS was published in the

Federal Register on September 9, 2011, initiating a 90-day public comment period. The BLM

February 2013

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation,

and Coordination

Scoping Period
1340 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

later extended the comment period for an additional 45 days, ending the comment period on

January 20, 2012. During the 135-day public comment period, the public was provided the

opportunity to review and comment on the Draft RMP and EIS.

Notification

The BLM issued a news release on September 9, 2011, announcing the release of the Draft RMP

and EIS, which provided the dates and times of the public commenting workshops. The BLM

also distributed a newsletter via U.S. mail and e-mail to individuals on the BLM mailing list,

which provided the dates and locations of all commenting workshops and public meetings. In

addition to news releases and other notifications from the BLM regarding the comment period,

some members of the public received notification from other sources. Several articles and news

bulletins regarding the release of the Draft RMP and EIS were published in local newspapers.

Many of the articles listed the dates for the public meetings and workshops.

Public Meetings

During the public comment period, the BLM held three commenting workshops in September

2011 and five public meetings in October 2011 in towns and cities throughout the planning area

(see Table 5.1, “Public Involvement, Coordination, and Consultation Events” (p. 1337) for

meeting times and locations). The commenting workshops were offered to inform readers about

how to navigate the Draft RMP and EIS, and how to prepare and submit substantive comments.

The October public meetings provided additional opportunity for the public to ask questions and

submit comments. BLM managers, resource specialists, and other representatives of the BLM

were present during these meetings to discuss and answer questions.

Comment Analysis

Based on comments received during this period, the BLM revised the RMP where appropriate.

Changes made to the Draft RMP and EIS based on comments are reflected in the Proposed RMP

and Final EIS. The Comment Analysis Report summarizes all substantive comments received

during the 135-day public comment period and the BLM responses to those comments, including

how the document was revised based on comments. The report is presented in Appendix

X (p. 1829).

5.2.3. Other Public Involvement

The BLM held one open house meeting in Lander, Wyoming, on March 31, 2010. Similar to

the public scoping meetings, resource specialists and other representatives of the BLM were

on hand to personally address questions and provide information to meeting participants. The

BLM also hosted five public workshops to obtain information and input on travel management

and recreational activities at locations throughout the planning area. Refer to Table 5.1, “Public

Involvement, Coordination, and Consultation Events” (p. 1337) for meeting times and locations.

Mailing List

The BLM compiled a project mailing list of individuals, agencies, and organizations that

participated in past BLM projects or requested to be on the general mailing list. Visitors to the

scoping meetings were asked to sign in and provide their mailing address so that they could

also be added to the mailing list. Other additions to the mailing list include those individuals

who have submitted requests to be added to the list. Duplicate entries, changes of address, and

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation, and

Coordination

Other Public Involvement February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1341

return-to-sender mailings were deleted from the official project mailing list as identified. Through

this process, the general mailing list was revised to approximately 975 entries. Requests to

be added to or to remain on the official mailing list will continue to be accepted throughout

the planning process.

Newsletters

Periodic newsletters have been developed and distributed to keep the public informed of the

Lander RMP revision. Eight newsletters have been e-mailed and mailed to individuals on the

Lander RMP mailing list. The newsletters have also been made available for download on the

Lander RMP website.

Website

The Lander RMP website can be found at: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/

rmps/lander.html. The website serves as a virtual repository for documents related to the

development of the RMP, including announcements, newsletters, and documents. The documents

are available in PDF format to ensure they are accessible to the widest range of interested parties.

The website provides the public an opportunity to submit their comments for consideration as part

of the planning process and to be added to the project mailing list.

Field Trips

On June 18, 2008, the BLM held a field trip to tour portions of the planning area with cooperating

agencies. The group visited Red Canyon overlook, Crow’s Nest/South Pass, Gilespie/Sweetwater

Canyon, and Beaver Rim. At each area, the BLM and cooperating agencies discussed the values

as well as the issues of each site in order to better understand and address the management

needs of these sites.

The BLM organized field trips from September 8, 2009 to September 11, 2009, that were attended

by the BLM and representatives from six Native American tribes. The field trips provided an

opportunity for the BLM and the tribal representatives to discuss issues and concerns related to

the RMP revision, as well as two other energy related projects proposed in the planning area.

The BLM also sought input from tribal representatives about areas of cultural importance to their

tribes that might be impacted by these projects. Native American consultation is discussed in

Section 5.3.3, “Native American Interests” (p. 1343).

5.2.4. Future Public Involvement

Public participation efforts will be ongoing throughout the remainder of the process of revising

the RMP and developing the EIS. The Proposed RMP and Final EIS considered all substantive

comments received during the 135-day public comment period for the Draft RMP and EIS.

Members of the public with standing will have the opportunity to protest the content of the

Proposed RMP and Final EIS during the specified 30-day protest period. The Record of Decision

will be issued by the BLM following the Governor’s Consistency Review and protest resolution.

5.3. Consultation and Coordination

This section documents the consultation and coordination efforts undertaken by the BLM

throughout the RMP revision process. Title II, Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and

February 2013

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation,

and Coordination

Future Public Involvement
1342 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Management Act (FLPMA) directs the BLM to coordinate planning efforts with Native American

tribes, other federal departments, and agencies of the state and local governments as part of its

land use planning process. The BLM is directed to integrate NEPA requirements with other

environmental review and consultation requirements to reduce paperwork and delays (40 Code of

Federal Regulations 1500.4-5). The BLM accomplished coordination with other agencies and

consistency with other plans through ongoing communications, meetings, and collaborative

efforts with the BLM Interdisciplinary Team, which includes BLM specialists, and federal,

state, and local agencies.

5.3.1. Cooperating Agencies

The BLM invited local, state, federal, and tribal representatives to participate as cooperating

agencies on the Lander RMP revision and EIS. The BLM invited the entities listed below to

participate in the process because they have jurisdiction by law or because they could offer

special expertise. Those who responded and requested cooperating agency status, are noted

with an asterisk (*).

Counties

● Carbon County Commission*

● Fremont County Commission*

● Hot Springs County Commission*

● Natrona County Commission

● Sweetwater County Commission*

Conservation Districts

● Dubois-Crowheart Conservation District*

● Popo Agie Conservation District*

● Lower Wind River Conservation District*

● Sweetwater County Conservation District*

● Natrona County Conservation District*

● Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District

● Hot Springs Conservation District

Wyoming State Agencies

● Office of the Governor*

● Office of State Lands and Investments*

● Wyoming Department of Agriculture*

● Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality*

● Wyoming Department of Revenue

● Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources*

● Wyoming Game and Fish Department*

● Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission*

● Wyoming State Engineer’s Office*

● Wyoming State Forestry Division

● Wyoming State Geological Survey*

● Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office*

● Wyoming State Planning Office*

● Wyoming Trails*

● Wyoming Water Development Commission

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation, and

Coordination

Cooperating Agencies February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1343

Federal Agencies

● Bureau of Indian Affairs – Wind River Agency

● National Park Service – National Trails System, Intermountain Region*

● U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8

● U.S. Forest Service – Shoshone National Forest

● U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service*

Tribes

● Eastern Shoshone

● Northern Arapaho

● Crow Tribe

● Oglala Sioux

● Rosebud Sioux

● Northern Cheyenne

● Cheyenne River Sioux

● Northern Ute

● Shoshone Bannock

The BLM formally invited the cooperating agencies to participate in developing the alternatives,

RMP and EIS, and to provide data and other information relative to their agency responsibilities,

goals, mandates, and expertise. Cooperating agencies provided input during the initial scoping

process, and throughout the revision process the BLM held general meetings with cooperating

agencies to discuss procedures and processes. The BLM and cooperating agencies held several

workshops to develop goals and objectives, a range of alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative

between March 2008 and May 2010. Cooperating agencies have also provided comments on draft

RMP related documents throughout the revision process. Refer to Table 5.1, “Public Involvement,

Coordination, and Consultation Events” (p. 1337) for a list of meeting dates.

5.3.2. Section 7 Consultation

The Lander Field Office contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the Lander RMP revision. On September 6,

2007, the USFWS provided a list of threatened and endangered species likely to occur on

BLM-administered land in the Lander Field Office, for evaluating BLM Section 7 responsibilities.

The USFWS was also provided opportunities to comment on draft RMP related documents during

the revision process. A copy of the September 2007 consultation letter is located in Section 5.5,

“Consultation Letters” (p. 1349). The USFWS provided comments on the preliminary draft

Biological Assessment. The Lander Field Office will continue consultation with the USFWS

throughout the RMP revision process.

5.3.3. Native American Interests

Consultation with Native American tribes is a requirement of FLPMA and BLM guidance. On

February 2, 2005, the BLM sent letters inviting Native American tribes to be cooperating agencies

as part of the RMP revision. The BLM sent additional letters on August 10, 2009 to the 16 tribes

listed below requesting further input on issues of religious and cultural importance. Consultation

letters are located in Section 5.5, “Consultation Letters” (p. 1349).

February 2013

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation,

and Coordination

Section 7 Consultation
1344 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Cheyenne River Sioux

● Crow Nation

● Eastern Shoshone

● Northern Arapaho

● Northern Cheyenne

● Ute Indian

● Oglala Sioux

● Rosebud Sioux

● Shoshone Bannock

● Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho

● Three Affiliated Tribes of Mandan, Hidatsa, and

Arikira Nation

● Lower Brule Sioux

● Yankton Sioux

● Fort Peck Assiniboine Sioux

● Standing Rock Sioux

● Crow Creek Sioux

The BLM requested specific information from the tribes to help identify areas of special concern

and to gather input on appropriate protection measures for sensitive cultural sites. The letters also

invited tribal representatives to participate in field trips within the planning area in September

2009. BLM representatives followed these letters with telephone calls to each tribe. In letters and

during the follow-up calls, the BLM stressed its desire for tribal input on the Draft RMP and EIS.

Representatives from six tribes attended the field trips which were held from September 8, 2009

to September 11, 2009. Government-to-government consultation with the tribes will continue

throughout the RMP revision process.

5.4. Distribution List

The BLM distributed the Proposed RMP and Final EIS to the following entities for their review:

TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

● Eastern Shoshone

● Northern Arapaho

● Crow Tribe

● Oglala Sioux

● Rosebud Sioux

● Northern Cheyenne

● Cheyenne River Sioux

● Northern Ute

● Shoshone Bannock

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS)

Carbon County, Wyoming

● Carbon County Commission

● Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District

● City of Rawlins

● Town of Saratoga

Fremont County, Wyoming

● Fremont County Commission

● Dubois-Crowheart Conservation District

● Lower Wind River Conservation District

● Popo Agie Conservation District

● City of Lander

● City of Riverton

● Town of Dubois

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation, and

Coordination

Distribution List February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1345

Hot Springs County, Wyoming

● Hot Springs County Commission

● Hot Springs Conservation District

● Town of Thermopolis

Natrona County, Wyoming

● Natrona County Commission

● Natrona County Conservation District

● City of Casper

Sweetwater County, Wyoming

● Sweetwater County Commission

● Sweetwater County Conservation District

● City of Rock Springs

● City of Green River

Teton County, Wyoming

● Teton County Commission

● Teton Conservation District

STATE OF WYOMING

● Senator Leland Christensen

● Senator Eli Bebout

● Senator Cale Case

● Senator Bernadine Craft

● Senator Larry Hicks

● Senator Gerald Geis

● Senator Kit Jennings

● Senator Bill Landen

● Senator Drew Perkins

● Senator Charles Scott

● Senator John Hastert

● Senator Stan Cooper

● Senator Don Dockstader

● Representative Donald Burkhart, Jr.

● Representative Jerry Paxton

● Representative W. Patrick Goggles

● Representative Lloyd Larsen

● Representative David Miller

● Representative Rita Campbell

● Representative Keith Gingery

● Representative Mark Baker

● Representative Nathan Winters

● Representative Tom Walters

● Representative John Freeman

● Representative Gerald Gay

● Representative Kendell Kroeker

● Representative Bunky Loucks

● Representative Steve Harshman

February 2013

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation,

and Coordination

Distribution List
1346 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Representative Thomas Lockhart

● Representative Tom Reeder

● Representative Tim Stubson

● Representative Stan Blake

● Representative Stephen Watt

● Representative Kathy Davison

● Representative Allen Jaggi

● Representative Ruth Petroff

● Representative Marti Halverson

WYOMING STATE AGENCIES

● Office of the Governor, Environmental Policy Division

● Office of State Lands and Investments

● Wyoming Business Council

● Wyoming Department of Administration and Information

● Wyoming Department of Agriculture

● Wyoming Department of Employment, Research, and Planning Division

● Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

○ Air Quality Division

○ Land Quality Division

○ Water Quality Division

● Wyoming Department of Revenue

● Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources

● Wyoming Department of Transportation

● Wyoming Game and Fish Department

● Wyoming State Engineer’s Office

● Wyoming State Forestry Division

● Wyoming State Geological Survey

● Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office

● Wyoming State Planning Office

● Wyoming Trails

WYOMING STATE BOARDS/COMMISSIONS

● Air Quality Advisory Board

● Board of Wildlife Commissioners

● Natural Gas Pipeline Authority

● Agriculture Board

● Environmental Quality Council

● Farm Bureau Federation

● Land Quality Advisory Board

● Livestock Board

● Mining Council

● Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

● Recreation Commission

● State Board of Outfitters and Professional Guides

● State Grazing Board

● Wyoming Trails Advisory Council

● Wyoming Water Development Commission

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation, and

Coordination

Distribution List February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1347

WEED AND PEST CONTROL DISTRICTS

● Carbon County Weed and Pest Control District

● Fremont County Weed and Pest Control District

● Hot Springs County Weed and Pest Control District

● Natrona County Weed and Pest Control District

● Sweetwater County Weed and Pest Control District

ASSOCIATIONS/COUNCILS

● Coalbed Methane Coordination Coalition

● Mormon Trails Association

● Oregon-California Trails Association

● Petroleum Association of Wyoming

● Wildlife Habitat Council

● Wyoming Association of Municipalities

● Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts

● Wyoming County Commissioners Association

● Wyoming Mining Association

● Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

● Wyoming Outdoor Council

● Wyoming Stockgrowers Association

● Wyoming Wilderness Association

● Wyoming Woolgrowers Association

● Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States

CLUBS/ALLIANCES/SOCIETIES/GROUPS

● Alliance for Historic Wyoming

● Audubon Society

● Audubon Wyoming

● Back Country Horsemen of America

● Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

● Foundation for North American Wild Sheep

● Greater Yellowstone Coalition

● Guardians of the Range

● Izaak Walton League

● Land and Water Fund of the Rockies

● Murie Audubon Society

● National Wildlife Federation

● North American Pronghorn Foundation

● Public Lands Advocacy

● Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

● Sierra Club

● The Conservation Fund

● The Land Trust Alliance

● The Nature Conservancy

● The Wilderness Society

● The Wildlife Society

● Trout Unlimited

● Western Lands Project

● Western Watersheds Project

February 2013

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation,

and Coordination

Distribution List
1348 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Wyoming Wildlife Federation

● Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust

CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION

● U.S. Senator Michael Enzi

● U.S. Senator John Barrasso

● U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

● Bureau of Indian Affairs

● Bureau of Reclamation

● National Park Service

● Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

● Natural Resources Library

● Office of Surface Mining

● U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

● U.S. Geological Survey

○ Washington, D.C.

○ Cheyenne, Wyoming

● Bureau of Land Management

○ Washington, D.C.

○ Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne

○ Wind River/Bighorn Basin District

○ Wyoming Field Offices: Buffalo, Casper, Cody, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins,

Rock Springs, and Worland

OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

● U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

● U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service

○ Shoshone National Forest

● U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

● U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

● Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration

● Federal Highway Administration

● Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

● U.S. Government Printing Office

● Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service

LIBRARIES

● Library of Congress

● University of Wyoming Library

● Carbon County Library

● Fremont County Public Library

● Hot Springs County Library

● Natrona County Library

● Sweetwater County Library

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

● Central Wyoming College

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation, and

Coordination

Distribution List February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1349

● University of Wyoming

● Western Wyoming Community College

● Wyoming Community College Commission

MEDIA

Newspapers

● Casper Journal, Casper, Wyoming

● Casper Star Tribune, Casper, Wyoming

● Dubois Frontier, Dubois, Wyoming

● Rawlins Daily Times, Rawlins, Wyoming

● Lander Journal, Lander, Wyoming

● Riverton Ranger, Riverton, Wyoming

● Rock Springs Rocket-Miner, Rock Springs, Wyoming

● The Independent Record, Thermopolis, Wyoming

● Wyoming Livestock Roundup, Casper, Wyoming

Radio

● KTHE - AM, Thermopolis

● KVOW - AM/KTAK - FM, Riverton

● KOVE - AM/KDLY - FM, Lander

● KTWO - AM/KMGW - FM/KUWC - FM, Casper

● KUGR - AM, Green River (Sweetwater County)

● KRKK - AM/KUWZ - FM, Rock Springs

● KIQZ - FM/KRAL - AM, Rawlins

● K217BP - FM, Dubois

● Wyoming Public Radio, Laramie

5.5. Consultation Letters

February 2013

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation,

and Coordination

Consultation Letters
1350 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Section7 Consultation Letter

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation, and

CoordinationConsultation Letters February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1351

February 2013

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation,

and Coordination

Consultation Letters
1352 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation, and

CoordinationConsultation Letters February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1353

February 2013

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation,

and Coordination

Consultation Letters
1354 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation, and

CoordinationConsultation Letters February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1355

Native American Consultation Letters

February 2013

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation,

and Coordination

Consultation Letters
1356 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation, and

CoordinationConsultation Letters February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1357

February 2013

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation,

and Coordination

Consultation Letters
1358 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation, and

CoordinationConsultation Letters February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1359

February 2013

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation,

and Coordination

Consultation Letters
1360 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

5.6. List of Preparers

Table 5.2, “List of Preparers” (p. 1360) lists the name, education, title, project role, and years of

experience of the individuals involved in the preparation of this document.

Table 5.2. List of Preparers

Name Education Title Role Years of Experience

Bureau of Land Management

Kristin Yannone B.A. History, J.D.

Law

Environmental

Planner and

Coordinator

Project Manager/

Inspector and Team

Leader

22

Jim Cagney B.S. Range/Forest

Management

Field Office Manager Lander Field Office

Manager

33

Sydney Schoepke B.S. Land Resource

Management, MS

Applied Geographic

Information Sciences

Geographic

Information System

Specialist

Geographic

Information System

Data Management

3

Greg Bautz B.S. Resource

Management

Soil Scientist Soil, Surface Water,

Invasive Species

30

Jared Oakleaf B.A. Geography and

Recreation, B.A.

Environmental and

Natural Resources

Outdoor Recreation

Planner

Cave and Karst,

Recreation, Travel

Management,

Wild and Scenic

Rivers, Wilderness

Study Areas, Areas

with Wilderness

Characteristics,

Visual Resources,

Area of Critical

Environmental

Concern, National

Scenic and Historic

Trails

10

Scott Fluer B.S. Range Science Wild Horse Specialist Vegetation, RiparianWetland Areas,

Livestock Grazing,

Area of Critical

Environmental

Concern

24

Tim Kramer B.S. Rangeland

Resources and

History, M.S.

Rangeland Resources,

Crops and Soil

Sciences

Natural Resource

Specialist, Fire and

Fuels

Forestry, Fire and

Fuels

14

Sue Oberlie B.S. Wildlife

Management, B.S.

Secondary Education

Wildlife Biologist Fish and Wildlife,

Special Status

Species, Area

of Critical

Environmental

Concern

26

Curtis Bryan B.S. Rangeland

Ecology and

Watershed

Management

Natural Resource

Specialist

Riparian-wetland

areas, Invasive species

8

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation, and

Coordination

List of Preparers February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1361

Name Education Title Role Years of Experience

Bureau of Land Management

Chris Krassin B.S. Soil Science and

Rangeland Ecology

Natural Resource

Specialist

Reclamation 16

Craig Bromley B.A. Anthropology Archeologist Cultural,

Paleontology,

National Historic

Trails, Area of Critical

Environmental

Concern

32

Jon Kaminsky B.A. Geology, M. Sci.

Hydrogeology

Assistant Field

Manager Minerals

Geology, Solid

Minerals

23

Roy Packer B.S. Forestry and

Range and Watershed

Management

Rangeland

Management

Specialist

Livestock Grazing,

Vegetation, Wild

Horses

36

Leta Rinker B.S. Business

Administration, B.A.

Business Management

Realty Specialist Lands and

Realty, including

Transportation/

Access and Rightsof-way, Renewable

Energy Utility/

Communication

Corridors, Land

Tenure

25

Rubel Vigil B.S. Rangeland

Management

Assistant Field

Manager

Livestock Grazing 25

Stuart Cerovski B.S. Petroleum

Engineering

Resource Adviser Fluid Minerals 26

Roy Allen B.S. Chemistry, M.S.

and PhD Economics

Social Conditions/

Economic Conditions/

Environmental Justice

Socioeconomics 33

Dean Stillwell B.S. Geology and

M.S. Geology

Geologist Oil and Gas,

Reasonable

Foreseeable

Development

32

Stan William

Davis-Lawrence

B.S. Math/Physics/

Geophysical

Engineering,

M.S. Geophysical

Engineering

Petroleum Engineer Oil and Gas,

Reasonable

Foreseeable

Development

37

Alfred M. Elser B.S. Geology, M.S.

Geology, and Ph.D.

Chemistry with a

concentration in

geochemistry

Petroleum Geologist Oil and Gas,

Reasonable

Foreseeable

Development

6

Melissa Hovey B.S. Civil

Engineering, M.S.

Environmental

Engineering

Air Quality Specialist Air Resources 14

Consultant

ICF International – Interdisciplinary Team

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) – Interdisciplinary Team

February 2013

Chapter 5 Public Involvement, Consultation,

and Coordination
This page intentionally

left blank
Chapter 6. References
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1365

Bibliography

American Petroleum Institute. 2009. API Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation

Methodologies for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. August.

Arneson, C.S., J.C. Case, K.D. Frederick, S.P. Gloss, J.D. Hamerlink, P.W. Huntoon, L.C. Munn,

S. Needham, and M. Wireman. 1998. Wyoming Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment

Handbook, Volume I: Background, Model Development, and Aquifer Sensitivity Analysis,

University of Wyoming SDVC Report 98-01, 201 p.

Arno, Stephen F. 1983. Ecological Effects and Management Implications of Indian Fires.

Proceedings-Symposium and Workshop on Wilderness Fire: Missoula, Montana,

November 15-18, 1983. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General

Technical Report GTR-INT-182. Ogden, Utah: Intermountain Research Station.

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. 2nd edition. Revised and

expanded (1st edition. 1980). Misc. Publ. No. 1391 (revised), Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 108p. with separate map at 1:7,500,000.

Baker, W.L. 2006. Fire and Restoration of Sagebrush Ecosystems. Wildlife Society Bulletin

34:177-185.

Barela, Jonathan. 2009. Personal Telephone Communication between J. Barela, Assistant

Director, Northern Arapaho Public Relations Department, and R. Fetter, Science

Applications International Corporation (SAIC). September.

Barrett, S.W. and S.F. Arno. 1982. Indian Fires as an Ecological Influence in the Northern

Rockies. Journal of Forestry. Vol. 80(10): 647-651.

Bartos, D.L. and R.B. Campbell. 1998. Decline of Quaking Aspen in the Interior West –

Examples from Utah. Rangelands 20(1):17-24.

Bartos, T.T., T.L. Quinn, L.L. Hallberg, and C.A. Eddy-Miller. 2008. Quality of Shallow

Ground Water in Three Areas of Unsewered Low-Density Development in Wyoming and

Montana, 2001. Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5012. U.S. Department of the

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2009. Regional Economic Information System, 1969-2007.

Available on Internet: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/. Accessed August 2009.

Beck, J.L, and D.L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of Livestock Grazing on Sage-Grouse Habitat.

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 4: 993-1002.

Bighorn Sheep Technical Committee. 2006. A Comprehensive Bighorn Sheep Management

Plan. Dubois, Wyoming.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1982. Green Mountain Grazing Draft Environmental

Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 1984. BLM Manual 8400, Visual Resource Management. U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1366 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

BLM. 1985. BLM Manual 9113, Roads. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management.

BLM. 1986. Historic Trails Plans 1986. Oregon/Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails

Management Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne.

BLM. 1987a. Lander Field Office Final Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact

Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 1987b. Lander Field Office Resource Management Plan Record of Decision. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. June 1987. Available

on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/

rmps.Par.19688.File.dat/lfo-rmp.pdf.

BLM. 1988. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for the Washakie

Resource Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available

on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/

rmps.Par.18302.File.dat/washakie-rmp.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2010.

BLM. 1990. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for the Cody

Resource Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available

on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/

rmps.Par.40097.File.dat/cyfo-rmp.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2010.

BLM. 1991. Wyoming Statewide Wilderness Study Report Wilderness Study Area Specific

Recommendations. Cheyenne, Wyoming. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management.

BLM. 1992a. Upland Game Bird Habitat Management on the Rise. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C.

BLM. 1992b. Raptor Habitat Management on Public Lands, A Strategy for the Future. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Chief Division of Wildlife

and Fisheries, Washington, D.C.

BLM. 1992c. Nongame Migratory Bird Habitat Conservation Plan. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C.

BLM. 1993a. H-8357-1, State designation of Byways. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management.

BLM. 1993b. Riparian Area Management, Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition,

Technical Reference 1737-9. Revised 1995, 1998. U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 1995. H‐8550‐1 Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness

Review. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C.

BLM. 1996. Partners Against Weeds: An Action Plan for Bureau of Land Management. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. Available

on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/weeds/PAW/index.htm.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1367

BLM. 1997a. Record of Decision and Green River Resource Management Plan.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on

Internet: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/

rmps.Par.27940.File.dat/greenriver-rmp.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2010.

BLM. 1997b. Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing

Management for the Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the State of Wyoming.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on Internet:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/grazing/standards_and_guidelines.html.

BLM. 1997c. Programmatic Agreement Among the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic

Preservation Officers Regarding the Manner in which BLM will meet its Responsibilities

Under the National Historic Preservation Act.

BLM. 1998. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for the Grass Creek

Planning Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available

on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/

rmps.Par.73361.File.dat/grasscreek-rmp.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2010.

BLM. 1999. Washington Office Instructional Memorandum No. 1999-076, Policy on the Use

of Certified Weed-Free Hay, Straw, and Mulch on BLM Lands. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2000. Instruction Memorandum No. 2000-182, Mitigating and Remediating Physical

Safety Hazards at Abandoned Mine Land Sites. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management. Washington, D.C.

BLM. 2001. National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public

Lands. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on

Internet: http://www.blm.gov/ohv/OHV_FNL.pdf. Accessed December 16, 2009.

BLM. 2002a. Final Report of Lander Field Office Review of Potential Wild and Scenic Rivers in

the Lander RMP. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available

on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/

lander.Par.18314.File.dat/WildScenicRiverRpt.pdf.

BLM. 2002b. National Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on Internet:

http://www.blm.gov/mountain_biking/final_text.pdf. Accessed December 16, 2009.

BLM. 2003. Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-274. Implementation of the Settlement of

Utah v. Norton Regarding Wilderness Study. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management.

BLM. 2004a. National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on Internet:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/

fish__wildlife_and.Par.9151.File.dat/Sage-Grouse_Strategy.pdf. Accessed September

23, 2010.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1368 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

BLM. 2004b. Southern Wyoming Fire Zone Fire Management Plan. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/

etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/fire/fmpdocs.Par.2037.File.dat/012-2004southern.pdf.

BLM. 2004c. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental

Impact Statement for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land

Management Rawlins Field Office Rawlins, Wyoming. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on Internet:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/rawlins.html. Accessed October

1, 2010.

BLM. 2004d. BLM Manual 8110, Identifying and Evaluating Cultural Resources. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2005a. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy

Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western States. U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2005b. Land Use Planning Handbook. H-1601-1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management. Available on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/

blm/ak/aktest/planning/planning_general.Par.65225.File.dat/blm_lup_handbook.pdf.

Accessed September 23, 2010.

BLM. 2005c. Update to the Wyoming BLM Forest and Woodland Management Action Plan. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. May.

BLM. 2006. State Protocol Between the Wyoming Bureau of Land Management State Director

and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer. U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2007a. Lander Field Office Final Scoping Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management. Available on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/

blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/lander.Par.95292.File.dat/Comment_Summary.pdf.

Accessed September 23, 2010.

BLM. 2007b. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the Casper Field Office Planning Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management. Available on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/

blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/casper/feis.Par.78019.File.dat/02_cover.pdf. Accessed

September 24, 2010.

BLM. 2007c. Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. Available on

Internet: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html.

BLM. 2007d. Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook. H-1742-1.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C.

Available on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1369

BLM. 2007e. Salt Creek Fieldwide Expansion Environmental Assessment, EA

#WY060-EA07-067. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Casper Field Office.

BLM. 2007f. Overland Pass Natural Gas Liquids Pipeline Record of Decision. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2008a. Pinedale Field Office Final Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact

Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on

Internet: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/pinedale/feis_prmp.html.

Accessed September 24, 2010.

BLM. 2008b. BLM Manual, 8380 Cave and Karst Management. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on Internet:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/

policy/blm_manual.Par.51379.File.dat/MS-8380.pdf.

BLM. 2008c. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources to Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah,

and Wyoming and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, November 2008.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on Internet: at

http://ostseis.anl.gov/documents/docs/OSTS_ROD.pdf.

BLM. 2008d. National Environmental Policy Handbook, H-1790. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. January.

BLM. 2008e. Manual 6840, Sensitive Species Management. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on Internet:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/

policy/blm_manual.Par.43545.File.dat/6840.pdf.

BLM. 2008f. Record of Decision: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the

Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project in Sublette County,

Wyoming. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on

Internet: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/pfodocs/

anticline/rod.Par.50775.File.dat/00ROD.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2011.

BLM. 2009a. Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation for the Lander Resource

Management Plan Revision. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management.

BLM. 2009b. Final Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report. U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Lander Field Office, Wyoming.

BLM. 2009c. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas, Lander Field

Office, Wyoming. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Wyoming State Office and Resource Management Group. February 9, 2009.

BLM. 2009d. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Geothermal Development,

Lander Field Office Planning Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management. Wyoming State Office and Resource Management Group. March 25, 2009.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1370 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

BLM. 2009e. Recreation Management Information System. U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C.

BLM. 2009f. Abandoned Mine Site Inventory. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management. Available on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/

Abandoned_Mine_Lands/abandoned_mine_site.html. Accessed August 24, 2009.

BLM. 2009g. Abandoned Mine Lands Projects. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management. Available on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/aml/

projects.html. Accessed August 24, 2009.

BLM. 2009h. Instruction Memorandum No. 1999-034, Attachment 1. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2009i. Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-215, Planning for Special Designations within

the National System of Public Lands. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management.

BLM. 2009j. Instruction Memorandum WY-2010-012, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management

Policy on Wyoming Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Administered Public Lands

including the Federal Mineral Estate. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management.

BLM. 2009k. Draft Environmental Assessment for the Paradise 230-kV Transmission Project,

PacifiCorp, Inc. WY-100-EA09-32. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management. Pinedale Field Office, Wyoming. April.

BLM. 2010a. Wildland Fire Information, National Interagency Fire Center, Report for the Lander

Field Office. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on

Internet: www.nifc.blm.gov. Accessed October 1, 2010.

BLM. 2010b. BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List. U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management. Available on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/

medialib/blm/wy/resources/efoia/IMs/2010.Par.41285.File.dat/wy2010-027atch2.pdf.

BLM. 2010c. Lander Field Office Cultural Class I Regional Review. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2010d. Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-003, Solar Energy Development Policy. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2010e. Lander Field Office Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Report. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2010f. Geocommunicator: Solid Minerals. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management. Available on Internet: http://www.geocommunicator.gov. Accessed

September 23.

BLM. 2010g. LR2000 – Land and Mineral Legacy Rehost 2000 System. U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. Available on Internet:

http://www.blm.gov/lr2000/.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1371

BLM. 2010h. Record of Decision for the Ruby Pipeline Project: Decision to Grant Rights of

Way and Temporary Use Permits. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management.

BLM. 2010i. Personal Communication from S. Cerovski, Petroleum Engineer, BLM Lander Field

Office, to R. Fetter, SAIC. January 2010 to March 2010.

BLM. 2010j. Personal Communication from S. Fluer, Rangeland Management Specialist, BLM

Lander Field Office, to R. Fetter, SAIC. January 2010 and August 2010.

BLM. 2010k. Personal Communication from J. Oakleaf, Outdoor Recreation Planner, BLM

Lander Field Office, to R. Fetter, SAIC. January and August 2010.

BLM. 2010l. Decision Record and Environmental Assessment for the Rattlesnake Hills Gold

Exploration Drilling Project. June.

BLM. 2011a. Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044, BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land

Use Planning Strategy. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2011b. Personal Communication from S. Fluer, Rangeland Management Specialist, BLM

Lander Field Office, and R. Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office, to R. Fetter,

SAIC. January.

BLM. 2011c. Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-004, Transmittal of Revised Recreation and

Visitor Services Land Use Planning Guidance. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management.

BLM. 2012a. Geographic Information System (GIS) Data. U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management. Lander Field Office, Wyoming.

BLM. 2012b. BLM Manual 6250, National Scenic and Historic Trail Administration. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM 2012c. BLM Manual 6280, Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and

Trails Under Study or Recommended as Suitable for Congressional Designation. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM 2012d. Instruction Memorandum No. WY 2012-019: Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Policy on Wyoming BLM Administered Public Lands Including the Federal

Mineral Estate. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM 2012e. Instruction Memorandum No. WY 2012-140: Collecting Paleontological

Resources Under the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on Internet:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/

national_instruction/2012/IM_2012-140.html.

BLM 2012f. Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-141: Confidentiality of Paleontological

Locality Information Under the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009, Title VI, Subtitle D

on Paleontological Resources Preservation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management. Available on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/

Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2012/IM_2012-141.html.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1372 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

BLM and DOE (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy). 2003. Assessing

the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands. U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management.

BLM and DOE. 2012. Final Solar Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on

Internet: http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/endex.cfm.

BLM and USFS (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service). 2007. BLM and Forest

Service Announce 2007 Federal Grazing Fee. BLM-CA-N-07-31. February 2.

BLM and USFS. 2008. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available on Internet:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/geothermal/geothermal_nationwide.html.

BLM and USFS. 2009. BLM and Forest Service Announce 2009 Federal Grazing Fee. January 30.

BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2009. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Available on

Internet: http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm. Accessed September 2009.

BLS. 2011a. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey. Available on Internet:

www.bls.gov/cps. Accessed January 2011.

BLS. 2011b. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Available on Internet: www.bls.gov/lau.

Accessed January 2011.

Blumenthal, D.M., U. Norton, J.D. Derner, and J.D. Reeder. 2006. Long-Term Effects of

Tebuthiuron on Bromus Tectorum. Western North American Naturalist 66(4):420-425.

BOR (Bureau of Reclamation). 2007. Boysen Dam data. Available on Internet:

http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Boysen+Dam.

BOR and USFWS (Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Platte

River Recovery Implementation Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. May 18, 2005.

Bowker, J.M., D.B.K. English, and H.K. Cordell. 1999. Projections of Outdoor Recreation

Participation to 2050. In: Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment

of Demand and Supply Trends. H.K. Cordell, ed. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of Wildlife to Noise. Pages 109-156. In: Wildlife and

Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Island Press,

Washington, D.C.

Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage Grouse Declines in Western North America: What are the Problems.

Proceedings of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 78:139-156.

Brewer, J., S.B. Smithson, S. Kaufman, and J. Oliver. 1980. The Laramide Orogeny: Evidence

from the COCORP Deep Crustal Seismic Profiles in the Wind River Mountains,

Wyoming: Tectonophysics 62(3-4):165-189.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1373

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1976. Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Study Report.

September 1976.

Cagney, J., E. Bainter, B. Budd, T. Christiansen, V. Herren, M. Holloran, B. Rashford, M. Smith,

and J. Williams. 2010. Grazing Influence, Objective Development, and Management in

Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat with Emphasis on Nesting and Early Brood

Rearing.

Carbon County. 1998. Carbon County Land Use Plan. Carbon County, Wyoming. Available on

Internet: http://www.carbonwy.com/index.aspx?NID=972. Accessed October 1, 2010.

Castellano, M.J., and T.J. Valone. 2007. Livestock, Soil Compaction and Water Infiltration

Rate: Evaluating a Potential Desertification Recovery Mechanism. Journal of Arid

Environments 71:97-108.

Center for Climate Strategies. 2007. Wyoming Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case

Projections 1990-2020. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

Central Region Energy Resources Team. 1996. The Importance of Reserve Growth to The

Nation’s Supply of Natural Gas: U.S. Geologic Survey Fact Sheet FS-202-96, 3 pp.

Available on Internet: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-202-96/FS-202-96.html.

Cerovski, A., M. Gorges, T. Byer, K. Duffy, and D. Felley, editors. 2001. Wyoming Bird

Conservation Plan, Version 1.0. Wyoming Partners In Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish

Department. Lander, Wyoming.

Cerovski, A.O., M. Grenier, B. Oakleaf, L. Van Fleet, and S. Patla. 2004. Atlas of Birds,

Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Nongame Program, Lander, Wyoming. 206 pp.

Certini, G. 2005. Effects of Fire on Properties of Forest Soils: A Review. Oecologia 143:1-10.

Clark, R.A. and G.H. Stankey. 1979. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for

Planning, Management, and Research. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.

Clark, T.W., and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University of Kansas – Museum

of Natural History. Lawrence, Kansas. pp. 108-111.

Clough, L.T. 2000. Nesting Habitat Selection and Productivity of Northern Goshawks in

West-Central Montana. M.S. Thesis, The University of Montana, Missoula (87pp).

Colby, B.R., C.H. Hembree, and F.H. Rainwater. 1956. Sedimentation and Chemical Quality of

Surface Waters in the Wind River Basin, Wyoming, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply

Paper 1373.

Cole, D. 1993. Minimizing Conflict between Recreation and Nature Conservation. In D. Smith, &

P. Hellmund (Eds.), Ecology of Greenways: Design and Function of Linear Conservation

Areas (pp. 105-102). Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Connelly, J.W. and C.E. Braun. 1997. Long-Term Changes in Sage Grouse (Centrocercus

urophasianus) Populations in Western North America. Wildlife Biology 3: 229-234.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1374 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to Manage

Sage-Grouse Populations and their Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985.

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of

Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Cordell, H.M. 1999. History of Outdoor Recreation and Nature-based Tourism in the United

States. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, Illinois.

Cordell, H. K., C.J. Betz, T.G. Green, S. Mou, V. Leeworthy, and P. Wiley. 2004. Outdoor

recreation in America in the 21st Century. A report to the Nation: The National Survey on

Recreation and the Environment. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice – Guidance under the National

Environmental Policy Act.

CREG (Consensus Revenue Estimating Group). 2009a. Wyoming State Government Revenue

Forecast, Fiscal Year 2009 – Fiscal Year 2014. Cheyenne, Wyoming. May. Available on

Internet: http://eadiv.state.wy.us/creg/GreenCREG_May09.pdf. Accessed August 2009.

CREG. 2009b. Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast for Fiscal Year 2010 –

Fiscal Year 2014. October. Available on Internet: http://eadiv.state.wy.us/creg/

GreenCREG_Oct09.pdf.

Crother, B.I. (Committee Chair, Committee on Standard English and Scientific Names).

2008. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of

North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our

Understanding. 6th Edition. Herpetological Circular No. 37, published January 2008.

Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. 96 pp. Available on Internet:

http://ssarherps.org/pdf/HC_37_6thEd.pdf.

Curtis, J., and K. Grimes. 2004. Wyoming Climate Atlas. Available on Internet:

http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/sco/climateatlas/title_page.html. Accessed September 30,

2010.

Davies, K.W., R.L. Sheley, and J.D. Bates. 2008. Does Prescribed Fall Burning Artemisia

Tridentata Steppe Promote Invasion or Resistance to Invasion after a Recovery Period?

Journal of Arid Environment 72:1076-1085.

Davies, K.W., J.D. Bates, and J.J. James. 2009a. Microsite And Herbaceous Vegetation

Heterogeneity After Burning Artemisia Tridentata Steppe. Oecologia 159:597-606.

Davies, K.W., T.J. Svejcar, and J.D. Bates. 2009b. Interaction of Historical and Nonhistorical

Disturbances Maintains Native Plant Communities. Ecological Applications

19:1536-1545.

DCCD (Dubois Crowheart Conservation District). 2004. Upper Wind River Watershed

Assessment 2001-2003.

DCCD. 2010. Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan 2011-2015.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1375

De Bruin, R.H. and R.W. Jones. 1990. Coalbed methane in Wyoming: Wyoming State Geological

Survey Public Information.

Dean Runyan Associates. 2007. The Economic Impact of Travel on Wyoming, 1997-2006

Detailed State and County Estimates. State Office of Travel and Tourism Wyoming

Business Council. Available on Internet: http://www.deanrunyan.com/impactsWY.html.

Accessed February 2008.

Dean Runyan Associates. 2008. State Office of Travel and Tourism Wyoming Business

Council. Available on Internet: http://www.deanrunyan.com/impactsWY.html. Accessed

September 2009.

Derner, J.D., W.K. Lauenroth, P. Stapp, and D.J. Augustine. 2009. Livestock As Ecosystem

Engineers for Grassland Bird Habitat in the Western Great Plains of North America.

Rangeland Ecology & Management 62:111-118.

Diebert, Pat. 2010. Personal Communication between Sue Oberlie, Bureau of Land Management

and Pat Diebert, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Dobkin, D.S. 1995. Management and Conservation of Sage Grouse, Denominative Species for

the Ecological Health of Shrubsteppe Ecosystems. BLM. Portland, Oregon, USA. pp. 26.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1999. Environmental Benefits of Advanced Oil and Gas

Exploration and Production Technology: U.S. Department of Energy DOE-FE-0385,

168 pp.

DOE and BLM (U.S. Department of Energy and Bureau of Land Management). 2008. Record

of Decision for Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy

Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western States (DOE/EIS-0386).

Doherty, K., D. Naugle, B. Walker, and J. Graham. 2008. Greater Sage-grouse Winter Habitat

Selection and Energy Development. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1):187-195.

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 2006a. Scientific Inventory of Onshore Federal Lands’

Oil and Gas Resources and the Extent and Nature of Restrictions of Impediments to their

Development. Available on Internet: http://www.blm.gov/epca/phase2/EPCA06full72.pdf.

Accessed September 23, 2010.

DOI. 2006b. Interagency Burned Area Rehabilitation Guidebook. Interpretation of Department

of the Interior 620 DM 3 for the Burned Area Rehabilitation of Federal and Tribal Trust

Lands, Version 1.3. U.S. Department of the Interior.

DOI. 2010. Secretarial Order 3289. Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change

on America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources. U.S.

Department of the Interior. Available on Internet: http://elips.doi.gov/app_so/

act_getfiles.cfm?order_number=3289A1. Accessed November 9, 2010.

DOI and The Nature Conservancy. 2008. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook.

BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs), BLM, NPS (National Park Service), USFWS, and The

Nature Conservancy. Available on Internet: www.frcc.gov/. Accessed September 29,

2010.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1376 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

DOI and USDA (U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2009.

Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. U.S.

Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture. February 13, 2009.

Driver, B.L. 2008. Why Outcomes-Focused Management is Needed. In Driver, Managing to

Optimize the Benefical Outcomes of Recreation (pp. 1-18). State College, PA: Venture

Publishing, Inc.

Driver, B.L. and Brown, P. 1978. The Opportunity Spectrum Concept and Behavior Information

in Outdoor Recreation Resource Supply Inventories: A Rationale. In Integrated

Inventories of Renewable Natural Resources: Precedings of the Workshop. General

Technical Reoport RM-55 (pp. 24-31). Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture

- Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Dubois Telephone Exchange. 2011. Comments of Dubois Telephone Exchange, Inc. on the

Lander Draft Resource Management Plan and EIS. December 1.

Duffield, W.A. and J.H. Sass. 2003. Geothermal Energy – Clean Power From the Earth's Heat.

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1249, 36 pp.

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2007a. Assumptions to the Annual

Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030: U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Oil and Gas DOE/EIA-0554(2007). 176 pp. Available on Internet:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/index.html.

EIA. 2007b. U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves 2006 Annual

Report: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Oil and Gas DOE/EIA-0216(2007). 162 pp.

Available on Internet: http://www.eia.doe.gov?neic/infosheets/petroleumreserves.html.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1995a. AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission

Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition. U.S. EPA Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 1995 with supplements.

EPA. 1995b. Protocol for Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates EPA 453/R-95-017. November.

EPA. 2005. Protecting Water Quality from Agricultural Runoff. Available on Internet:

http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/Ag_Runoff_Fact_Sheet.pdf

EPA. 2006. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. MOBILE6.2. Available on Internet:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/mobile.htm. March.

EPA. 2008. National Emissions Inventory Browser, Geographic Emissions Summary,

Wyoming, 2008. Available on Internet: http://neibrowser.epa.gov/eis-public-web/geo/

summary.html?jurisdictionId=52.

EPA. 2009a. AirData: Access to Air Pollution Data. Available on Internet:

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html.

EPA. 2009b. Nitrous Oxide Sources and Emissions. Available on Internet:

http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html.

EPA. 2009c. NONROAD2008a. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Available on Internet:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm. July 6.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1377

EPA. 2009d. Clean Air Markets - Data and Maps. Available on Internet: http://www.epa.gov/

airmarkets/.

EPA. 2009e. Ecoregions of Wyoming. Available on Internet: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/

wy/wy_front.pdf.

EPA. 2010a. Climate Change Indicators in the United States. EPA 430-R-10-007. Available on

Internet: www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/ClimateIndicators_full.pdf. April.

EPA. 2010b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008 EPA

430-R-10-006. Available on Internet: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/

usinventoryreport.html. April.

EPA. 2012a. AirData: Access to Monitored Air Quality Data from EPA’s Air Quality System

(AQS) Data Mart. Available on Internet: http://www.epa.gov/airdata/.

EPA. 2012b. What is Nonpoint Source Pollution? Available on Internet: water.epa.gov/polwaste/

nps/whatis.cfm.

EPA. 2012c. Natural Gas Extraction - Hydraulic Fracturing. Available on Internet:

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm.

EPA. No Date. Options for Reducing Methane Emissions From Pneumatic Devices in

the Natural Gas Industry. Natural Gas STAR Program. Available on Internet:

http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/ll_pneumatics.pdf.

Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, and D.P. Young Jr. 2005. A Summary and Comparison of Bird

Mortality from Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions. U.S. Department

of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191.

Faaborg, J., M. Brittingham, T. Donovan, and J. Blake. 1995. Habitat Fragmentation in the

Temperate Zone. Pages 357-380. In: T.E. Martin and D. Finch, editors. Ecology and

Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds: A Synthesis and Review of Critical Issues.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Fertig, W. 2000a. Cirsium pulcherrimum var. aridum. State Species Abstract. Wyoming

Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). Available on Internet: http://www.uwyo.edu/

wynddsupport/docs/Reports/SpeciesAbstracts/Cirsium_pulcherrimum_aridum.pdf.

Accessed August 26, 2009.

Fertig, W. 2000b. Astragalus gilviflorus var. purpureus. State Species Abstract. Wyoming

Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). Available on Internet: http://www.uwyo.edu/

wynddsupport/docs/Reports/SpeciesAbstracts/Astragalus_gilviflorus_purpureus.pdf.

Accessed August 26, 2009.

Fertig, W. 2000c. Lesquerella fremontii. State Species Abstract. Wyoming Natural Diversity

Database (WYNDD). Available on Internet: http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/

Reports/SpeciesAbstracts/Lesquerella_fremontii.pdf. Accessed August 26, 2009.

Fertig, W. 2000d. Antennaria arcuata. State Species Abstract. Wyoming Natural Diversity

Database (WYNDD). Available on Internet: http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/

Reports/SpeciesAbstracts/Antennaria_arcuata.pdf. Accessed August 26, 2009.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1378 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Fertig, W. 2000e. Cryptantha subcapitata. State Species Abstract. Wyoming Natural Diversity

Database (WYNDD). Available on Internet: http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/

Reports/SpeciesAbstracts/Cryptantha_subcapitata.pdf. Accessed August 26, 2009.

Fertig, W. 2000f. Artemisia porteri. State Species Abstract. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

(WYNDD). Available on Internet: http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/Reports/

SpeciesAbstracts/Artemisia_porteri.pdf. Accessed August 26, 2009.

Fertig, W. and B. Heidel. 2002. Yermo xanthocephalus. State Species Abstract. Wyoming

Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). Available on Internet: http://www.uwyo.edu/

wynddsupport/docs/Reports/SpeciesAbstracts/Yermo_xanthocephalus.pdf. Accessed

August 26, 2009.

Fertig, W. and S. Mills. 2000. Physaria saximontana var. saximontana. State Species

Abstract. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). Available on

Internet: http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/Reports/SpeciesAbstracts/

Physaria_saximontana_saximontana.pdf. Accessed August 26, 2009.

Fetter, C.W., Jr. 1980. Applied Hydrogeology. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. Columbus

Ohio: 488.

Finn, T.M. 2007. Source Rock Potential of Upper Cretaceous Marine Shales in the Wind River

Basin, Wyoming. In Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in

the Wind River Basin Province, Wyoming.

Forman, R.T.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P. Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, V.H. Dale, L. Fahrig,

R. France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F.J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T.C.

Winter. 2003. Road Ecology, Science and Solutions. Washington. D.C: Island Press.

Foulke, T., D. Olson, D. Taylor, C. Bastian, and R. Coupal. 2006. A Survey and

Economic Assessment of Off-Road Vehicle Use in Wyoming, Report for The

Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources, Division of

State Parks and Historic Sites, State Trails Program. University of Wyoming,

Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics. July. Available on Internet:

http://agecon.uwyo.edu/EconDev/PubStorage/ORVRptFinal10Aug06.pdf.

Fox, D.G., A.M. Bartuska, J.G. Byrne, E. Cowling, R. Fisher, G.E. Likens, S.E. Lindberg,

R.A. Linthurst, J. Messer, and D.S. Nichols. 1989. A Screening Procedure to Evaluate

Air Pollution Effects on Class I Wilderness Areas. General Technical Report RM-168.

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service.

Fremont County. 2004. Fremont County Land Use Plan. Fremont County, Wyoming. September

7.

Fremont County. 2010. Perc Test Numbers, Lander and Dubois Area, Fremont County, Wyoming,

1985-2010.

Fremont County Weed and Pest District. 2009. Fremont County Weed and Pest District website.

Available on Internet: http://www.fcwp.org/.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1379

Frisina, M.R. 1992. Elk Habitat Use Within a Rest-Rotation Grazing System. Rangelands

14:93-96.

Furniss, M.J., S. Flanagan, and B. McFadin. 2000. Hydrologically-Connected Roads:

An Indicator of the Influence of Roads on Chronic Sedimentation, Surface

Water Hydrology, and Exposure to Toxic Chemicals. In: Stream Notes. Stream

Systems Technology Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. Available on Internet:

www.stream.fs.fed.U.S./news/streamnt/jul00/jul00_2.htm#anchortop.

GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009a. United States Global Change Research

Program. Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. September 28. Available on

Internet: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/U.S.-

impacts/regional-climate-change-impacts/great-plains.

GCRP. 2009b. United States Global Change Research Program. Global Climate Change Impactsin

the U.S. September 28. Available on Internet: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/

reports/scientific-assessments/U.S.-impacts/regional-climate-change-impacts/northwest.

Geist, V., J.L. Schmidt, and D.L. Gilbert, eds. 1978. Behavior. In Big Game of North America:

Ecology and Management. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, pp. 283-296.

Genho, Paul C. 2012. Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental

Impact Statement for the Lander Field Office Planning Area. Farmland Reserve, Inc.

January 18.

Gersic, J. 1993. Nonmetallic Mineral Resources of the Wind River Indian Reservation (Excluding

Fuels); Wyoming Geological Association Special Symposium on Oil and Gas and Other

Resources of the Wind River Basin, Wyoming, Casper, Wyoming 14-17, 1993, pp.

420-422.

Graham, James M. No Date. Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement for the Lander Field Office Planning area. Graham

Ranch, Inc.

Grenvik, C. 2005. Personal communication between Craig Grenvik, Wyoming Department

of Revenue, Mineral Tax Division and Rob Fetter, Science Applications International

Corporation. February.

Hagen, C.A., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. Schroeder. 2007. A Meta-Analysis for Greater

Sage-Grouse Nesting and Brood Rearing Habitats. Wildlife Biology 13 (Supplement

1):42-50.

Hamerlinck, J.D. and C.S. Arneson, editors. 1998. Wyoming Ground Water Vulnerability

Assessment Handbook: Volume 1. Background, Model Development, and Aquifer

Sensitivity Analysis. University of Wyoming.

Handley, J. and B. Heidel. 2008. Rorippa calycina. State Species Abstract. Wyoming

Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). Available on Internet: http://www.uwyo.edu/

wynddsupport/docs/Reports/SpeciesAbstracts/Rorippa_calycina.pdf. Accessed August

26, 2009.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1380 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Hann, W.J. and D.L. Bunnell. 2001. Fire and Land Management Planning and Implementation

Across Multiple Scales, International Journal Of Wildland Fire 10:389-403.

Hardy, C. 2006. Press Release: Congress Passes Soda Ash Royalty Relief.

Office of Senator Craig Thomas. September 29. Available on Internet:

http://thomas.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail=635=9=2006.

Accessed January 2007.

Harris, L. 1984. The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of

Biotic Diversity. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Hausel, W.D. 1987. Preliminary Report on Gold Mineralization, Petrology, and Geochemistry

of the South Pass Granite-Greenstone Belt, Wind River Mountains, Wyoming. In The

Thrust Belt Revisited: Wyoming Geological Association 38th Annual Field Conference

Guidebook, pp. 287-304.

Hausel, W.D. 1989. The Geology of Wyoming’s Precious Metal Lode and Placer Deposits: The

Geological Survey of Wyoming Bulletin 68:248.

Hausel, W.D. 2004. Public Field Trip to the South Pass Gold District: Wyoming Geological

Survey informal report, Metals and Precious Stones Section, 17 pp.

Hausel, W.D. and G.S. Holden. 1978. Mineral Resources of the Wind River Basin and Adjacent

Precambrian Uplifts; Wyoming Geological Association Thirtieth Annual Field Conference

Guidebook, Resources of the Wind River Basin. September 1978. Casper, Wyoming.

pp. 303-304.

Headwaters Economics. 2008. Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development

Strategy: Are Energy-focusing Counties Benefiting? Bozeman, Montana. September.

Available on Internet: www.headwaterseconomics.org/energy.

Headwaters Economics. 2009a. A SocioEconomic Profile: Wind River Reservation, Wyoming.

Report generated by the Economic Profile System; data and generation macros online at

www.headwaterseconomics.org/. Generated February 11, 2009.

Headwaters Economics. 2009b. A Socioeconomic Profile, 5 County Aggregation: Carbon,

Fremont, Hot Springs, Natrona, and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming. Profile run using

Economic Profile System, Version Date March 25, 2009.

Heasler, H.P., B.S. Hinckley, K.G. Buelow, S.A. Spencer, and E.R. Decker. 1983. Geothermal

Resources of Wyoming: National Geophysical Data Center National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration for the Geothermal and Hydropower Technologies Division

U.S. Department of Energy (map).

Heidel, B. 2007. Spiranthes diluvialis. State Species Abstract. WYNDD. Available

on Internet: http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/Reports/SpeciesAbstracts/

Spiranthes_diluvialis.pdf.

Heidel, B. 2008. Penstemon haydenii. State Species Abstract. WYNDD. Available on

Internet: http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/Reports/SpeciesAbstracts/

Penstemon_haydenii.pdf. Accessed August 26, 2009.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1381

Heidel, B. 2009a. Trifolium barnebyi. State Species Abstract. Wyoming Natural Diversity

Database (WYNDD). Available on Internet: http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/

Reports/SpeciesAbstracts/Trifolium_barnebyi.pdf. Accessed August 26, 2009.

Heidel, B. 2009b. Status of Lesquerella macrocarpa (Large-fruited bladderpod) and Phlox

pungens (Beaver Rim phlox) in the Upper Green River Basin. Prepared for the Bureau of

Land Management. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming.

Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper, and C.H. Herbel. 2011. Range Management Principles and Practices.

6th edition. Pearson Education, Inc.

Hopkins, B. 2008. Outcomes-Focused Management of the BLM's Red Hill Special Recreation

Management Area. In B. Driver, Managing to Optimize the Beneficial Outcomes of

Recreation pp. 279-285. Venture Publishing, Inc. State College, Pennsylvania.

Hot Springs County. 2002. Hot Springs County Land Use Plan. Hot Springs County, Wyoming.

Available on Internet: http://www.hscounty.com/Departments/Planner/Default.aspx.

Accessed October 1, 2010.

IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments) Data. 2009. Available on

Internet: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National

Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4 Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use, Chapter

10. Available on Internet: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html.

IPCC. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis (Summary for Policymakers).

Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England and New York, New York. Available

on Internet: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm.

IPCC. 2007b. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K., and

Reisinger, A. (Eds.). Geneva, Switzerland. 104 pp.

Jacquet, J. 2006. Sublette County Wage and Employment Study. Prepared for The

Sublette County Commissioners and The Sublette County Socioeconomic Analysis

Advisory Committee. July. Available on Internet: http://www.sublette-se.org/files/

Sublette_County_Wage_Study.pdf. Accessed December 2006.

Johnson, L., G. Wallace, and J. Mitchell. 1997. Visitor Perceptions of Livestock Grazing in

Five Wilderness Areas: A Preliminary Assessment. International Journal of Wilderness

3(2):14-20.

Jost, L. 2007. Personal communication (interview) between Loren Jost, Director, Riverton

Museum, Riverton, Wyoming, and R. Fetter, Science Applications International

Corporation. August 15.

Kauffman, J. Boone and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock Impacts On Riparian Ecosystems and

Streamside Management Implications. A Review. Journal of Range Management 37(5):

430-438.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1382 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Keefer, W.R. 1965. Stratigraphy and Geologic History of the Uppermost Cretaceous, Paleocene,

and lower Eocene rocks in the Wind River Basin, Wyoming: Geology of the Wind River

Basin, Central Wyoming, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 495(A) 77.

Keefer, W.R. 1970. Structural Geology of the Wind River Basin, Basin: Geology of the Wind

River Basin, Central Wyoming, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 495(D) 35.

Keystone Center. 1991. Final Consensus Report of the Keystone Policy Dialogue on Biological

Diversity on Federal Lands. Colorado. April.

Kennedy, P.L. 2003. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): A Technical

Conservation Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Region. January 3.

Kirschbaum, M.A., T.M. Finn, R.C. Johnson, J. Kibler, P.G. Lillis, P.H. Nelson, L.N.R. Roberts,

S.B. Roberts, R.R. Charpentier, T. Cook, T.R. Klett, R.M. Pollastro, and C.J. Schenk.

2005. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Wind River Basin

Province. U.S. Geological Survey National Assessment of Oil and Gas Fact Sheet,

FS-2005-3141, 2 pp. Available on Internet: http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/noga/.

Knick, S.T. and J.C. Connelly. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a

Landscape and Its Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology No. 38. A Publication of the

Cooper Ornithological Society.

Knick S.T., S.E. Hanser, R.F. Miller, D.A. Pyke, M.J. Wisdom, S.P. Finn, E.T. Rinkes, and

C.J. Henny. 2011. Ecological Influence and Pathways of Land Use in Sagebrush. pp.

203-251 in S.T. Knick and J.C. Connelly (Editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and

Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology. Vol.38.

University of California Press, Berkley, CA.

Kramer, A.T. and K. Havens. 2009. Plant Conservation Genetics in a Changing World. Trends in

Plant Science 14:599-607.

LANDFIRE. 2010. Homepage of the LANDFIRE project, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. U.S. Department of the Interior. Available on Internet:

http://www.landfire.gov/index.php.

Langner, L.L. and C.H. Flather. 1994. Biological Diversity: Status and Trends in the United

States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Lawler, J.J., S.L. Shafer, D. White, P. Kareiva, E.P. Maurer, A.R. Blaustein, and P.J. Bartlein.

2009. Projected Climate-Induced Faunal Change in the Western Hemisphere. Ecology

903(3):588-597.

Lindsey, N.P., J.E. Staples, J.A. Lehman, and M. Fisher. 2010. Surveillance for Human West Nile

Virus Disease – United States, 1999-2008. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;

Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious

Diseases.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1383

Love, J.D., A.C. Christiansen, and A.J. Ver Ploeg. 1993. Stratigraphic Chart Showing

Phanerozoic Nomenclature for the State of Wyoming: Geological Survey of Wyoming

Map Series 41, 1 Plate.

Lower Wind River Conservation District. 2010. Land Use and Natural Resource Management

Plan 2011-2015.

Mack, R.N. and J.N. Thompson.1982. Evolution in Steppe with Few Large Hooved

Mammals. American Naturalist 119: 757-773.

Massey, G.M. 2004. Making Sense of Work on the Wind River Indian Reservation. American

Indian Quarterly, Summer/Fall. Volume 28(3-4):786-816.

Massey, G. and A. Blevins. 1999. Employment and Unemployment on the Wind River Indian

Reservation. Wyoming Department of Employment, Research & Planning. October 6.

McGuinness, C.L. 1963. The Role of Groundwater in the National Water Situation. U.S.

Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1800. 1121 pp.

Mealor, Rachel D. 2007. Exurban Landowners in Wyoming: Their Land Management and

How They are Perceived by Natural Resource Advisors. M.S. Thesis, Department of

Renewable Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie.

Meinzer, O.E. 1923. The Occurrence of Goundwater in the United States, with Discussion of

Principles: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 489, 321.

Merrill. 2008. Tribe Pushes Boundary Issue. Star-Tribune. October 2. Available on

Internet: http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_e427ec32-fa11-564a-90ed035e26acaa6c.html.

Miller, R.F., S.T. Knick, D.A. Pyke, C.W. Meinke, S.E. Hanser, M.J. Wisdom, and A.L. Hild.

2011. Characteristics of Sagebrush Habitats and Limitations to Long-Term Conservation.

Pp. 145-184 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology

and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38.

University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Miller, R.F., T.J. Svejcar, and N.E. West. 1994. Implications of Livestock Grazing in the

Intermountain Sagebrush Region: Plant Composition. Pages 101–146 in M. Vavra, W.A.

Laycock, and R.D. Pieper, Editors. Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the

West. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado.

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of Recreational Trails on Breeding

Bird Communities. Ecological Applications 8(1):162-169.

Moline B.R., R.R. Fletcher, and D.T. Taylor. 1991. Impact of Agriculture on Wyoming’s

Economy. Cooperative Extension Service, Department of Economics, College of

Agriculture, University of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming. B-954. April.

Moore, R.L. and B.L. Driver. 2005. Introduction to Outdoor Recreation: Providing and

Managing Natural Resource Based Opportunities. Venture Publishing, Inc. State College,

Pennsylvania.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1384 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

NADP (National Atmospheric Deposition Program). 2009. NADP/NTN Monitoring. Available

on Internet: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/nadpdata.

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2009. Range Review, February 2009. Issue

2009-02. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

National Academy of Sciences. 2006. Understanding and Responding to Climate

Change: Highlights of National Academies Reports. Division on Earth and Life

Studies. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. Available on Internet:

http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/understanding-climate-change.shtml.

National Energy Policy Development Group. 2001. Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally

Sound Energy for America’s Future. Report of the National Energy Policy Development

Group. May.

National Fire Plan. 2009. National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System. Available on

Internet: http://www.nfpors.gov.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2003. Fire Regime Condition Class Definition. Available

on Internet: http://www.nwcg.gov/teams/wfewt/message/FrccDefinitions.pdf.

NativeBiz. 2009. Wyoming Casinos' Economic Impact Tops $90 Million. January 16.

Natrona County. 1998. Natrona County Development Plan. Natrona County, Wyoming. Available

on Internet: http://www.natrona.net/index.aspx?nid=173. Accessed October 1, 2010.

Natrona County Conservation District. 2010. Long Range Strategic Plan 2011-2015.

NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures). 2004. State Casino Taxes. June 4. Available

on Internet: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12805. Accessed September 2009.

NISC (National Invasive Species Council). 2008. 2008-2012 National Invasive Species

Management Plan (NISMP).

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. NWS (National

Weather Service) Climate Data - Lander, Wyoming. Available on Internet:

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/riw/?n=cms_climate_lander_2008_summary.

NOLS (National Outdoor Leadership School). 2006. PowerPoint Presentation for Shoshone

National Forest Cooperators’ Meeting. February.

Northern Arapaho Public Relations Department. 2009. Hei'towoot News: The Northern Arapaho

Tribal News 2(6). August.

NPS (National Park Service). 1981. Oregon National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management

and Land Use Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, August.

NPS. 1993. Indian Lands Judicially Established 1978. Map updated 1993. U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Available on Internet:

http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/ONLINEDB/INDEX.HTM. Accessed August 2009.

NPS. 1999. Comprehensive Management and Land Use Plan Final Environmental Impact

Statement California National Historic Trail and Pony Express National Historic Trail;

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1385

Management and Use Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Statement Oregon

National Historic Trail and Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail.

NPS. 2006. Mandatory Class I Areas. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Available

on Internet: www.nature.nps.gov/air/Maps/images/ClassIAreas.jpg.

NPS. 2010. Observed and Projected Ecological Response to Climate Change in the Rocky

Mountains and Upper Columbia Basin: A Synthesis of Current Scientific Literature.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Natural Resource Report

NPS/ROMN/NRR-2010/220.

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2003. National Range and Pasture Handbook,

190-VI, 1st Revision, December 2003. Ecological Sites and Forage Suitability Groups.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service. Available on

Internet: http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/publications/nrph.html.

NRCS. No Date. National Soil Survey Handbook, Title 430-VI. Available on Internet:

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/.

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2002. Pacific_Northwest_Regional_Wind_High_Resolution.zip. Golden, CO: TrueWind Solutions/National

Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/. February 24.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2010. Location of Uranium Recovery Facilities. Available on

Internet: http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/uranium/index.html#licensed-facilities.

Accessed January 25, 2011.

Office of Management and Budget. 1992. Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost

Analysis of Federal Programs. Office of Management and Budget.

Over, E. 2009. Casinos Add Reservation Jobs, Boost Morale. April 10. Wyoming Business Report.

Available on Internet: http://www.wyomingbusinessreport.com/article.asp?id=99531.

Accessed September 2009.

Pannell, F. 2008. Personal communication between Fred Pannell, Wyoming Office of State Lands

and Investments, and J. Sidon, SAIC. March.

Parker, P.L. and T.F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional

Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service.

Paton, P.W. 1994. The Effect of Edge on Avian Nest Success: How Strong is the Evidence.

Conservation Biology 8(1):17-26.

Patricelli, Gail L., J.L. Blickley, S.L. Hooper. 2012. The Impacts of Noise on Greater

Sage-Grouse: A Discussion of Current Management Strategies in Wyoming with

Recommendations for Further Research and Interim Protections. Prepared for the Bureau

of Land Management, Lander Field Office and Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne and

Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Paysen, T.E., R.J. Ansley, J.K. Brown, G.J. Gotffried, S.M. Haase, MG. Harrington, M.G. Narog,

S.S. Sackett, and R.C. Wilson. 2000. Chapter 6: Fire in Western Shrubland, Woodland,

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1386 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and Grassland Ecosystems. USDA, Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol

2.

Pew (Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production). 2008. Putting Meat on the Table:

Industrial Farm Animal Production In America. Available on Internet: http://ncifap.org/.

Accessed October 1, 2010.

Pierskalla, C.D., M.E. Lee, T.V. Stein, D.H. Anderson, and R. Nickerson. 2004. Understanding

Relationships Among Recreation Opportunities: A Meta-Analysis of Nine Studies.

Leisure Sciences 26:163-180.

Pierson, F.B., P.R. Robichaud, C.A. Moffet, K.E. Spaeth, S.P. Hardegree, P.E. Clark, C.J.

Williams. 2008. Fire Effects on Rangeland Hydrology and Erosion in a Steep

Sagebrush-Dominated Landscape. Hydrological Processes 22:2916-2929.

Pinkerton, J.T. 1981. Knights of the Broadax. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho.

Plafcan, M., C.A. Eddy-Miller, G.F. Fritz, and J.P.R. Holland II. 1995. Water Resources of

Fremont County, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations

Report 95-4095, 3 sheets, 133 pp.

Popo Agie Conservation District. 2007. Popo Agie Conservation District Long Range Plan

2008-2012. Available on Internet: http://www.popoagie.org/publications/docs/2008-

2012longrangeplan.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2010.

Prichard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S. Leonard, B. Mitchell,

and J. Staats. 1998. Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper

Functioning Condition and Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

and Natural Resources Conservation Service Technical Reference 1737-15.

Qwest Corporation. 2011. Comments of Qwest Corporation dba CenturyLink QC on the Lander

Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. December 7.

Responsive Management. 2004. Wyoming Resident and Nonresident Deer, Elk, and Antelope

Hunter Expenditure Survey, Conducted for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Available on Internet: http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/

WY_Hunter_Expend_Survey_Report.pdf.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, and D.A. Boyce, Jr. 2006. An Ecosystem-Based Conservation

Strategy for the Northern Goshawk. Studies in Avian Biology 31: 299-311.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, and D.A. Boyce Jr. 2008. Northern Goshawk Habitat: An

Intersection of Science, Management, and Conservation. Journal of Wildlife Management

72, No. 4 1047–55.

Rice, J., A. Tredennick, and L.A. Joyce. 2012. Climate Change on the Shoshone National Forest,

Wyoming: A Synthesis of Past Climate, Climate Projections, and Ecosystem Implications.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. January.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin,

R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern

Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM-217, 90

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1387

pp. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort

Collins, CO, USA.

Richter, J.R. 1981. Occurrence and Characteristics of Groundwater in the Wind River Basin,

Wyoming, Volume IV-A: Wyoming Water Resources Research Institute, 149 pp.

Riverton Museum. 2007. Riverton History Page. Available on Internet: http://

www.wyoming.com/~rivmus/rivhist.htm. Accessed February 28, 2008.

Rocky Mountain Federal Leadership Forum. 2002. Reasonably Foreseeable Development

Scenarios and Cumulative Effects Analysis for Oil and Gas Activities on Federal

Lands in The Greater Rocky Mountain Region: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Final Draft Published August 30, 2002.

Roper Starch. 2000. Outdoor Recreation in America 2000: Addressing Key Societal Concerns.

Prepared for The Recreation Roundtable. September.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi,

J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada

Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. National Park Service. Forest

Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The Scientific

Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in

the Western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Sanderson, H.R., R.A. Meganck, and K.C. Gibbs. 1986. Range Management and Scenic Beauty

as Perceived by Dispersed Recreationists. Journal of Range Management 39(5):464-469.

Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District. 2006. Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins

Conservation District 2007-2011 Long Range and Natural Resource Management

Plan. Available on Internet: http://www.sercd.org/index_files/SERCD_LRP_2007.pdf.

Accessed September 24, 2010.

Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological Consequences of Ecosystem

Fragmentation: A Review. Conservation Biology, 5:18-32.

Shepler, G. 2008. Personal communication between Glenda Shepler, Wyoming Field Office,

National Agricultural Statistics Service, and J. Sidon, SAIC. March.

Shepperd, W.D. 2001. Manipulations to Regenerate Aspen Ecosystems. In: Shepperd, W.D., D.

Binkley, D.L. Bartos, T.J. Stohlgren, L.G. Eskew, compilers. Sustaining Aspen in Western

Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings, June 13-15, 2000, Grand Junction, Colorado.

Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 460 p.

Skillman, J.B., R.F. Sage, and A. Meyer. 2010. Do C3 and C4 Plants Respond Similarly to

Climate Change? Comparative Studies with C4 Grass Muhlengergia richardsonis at High

Elevations in California’s White Mountains.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1388 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Smith, B. 2010. Personal communication between Brian Smith, Rawlins Field Office Outdoor

Recreation Planner and Jared Oakleaf, Lander Field Office. November.

Smithson, S.B., J.A. Brewer, S. Kaufman, J.E. Oliver, and C.A. Hurich. 1979. Structure of the

Laramide Wind River Uplift, Wyoming, from COCORP Deep Reflection Data and from

Gravity Data. Journal of Geophysical Research 84(11):5955-5972.

Sonoran Institute. 2007. Population, Employment, Earnings, and Personal Income Trends:

Fremont County, Wyoming. Bozeman, Montana: Sonoran Institute.

Sowers, T.C. 1941. Petroglyphs of Castle Gardens, Wyoming. Wyoming Archaeological Survey,

Work Projects Administration.

Squires, J.R. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest-site Preference of Northern Goshawks in Southcentral

Wyoming. The Journal of Wildlife Management 60, No. 1 170–77.

Stacey, M.E. and C. Lindstone, Lindstone and Associates. 2003. Wyoming State Water Plan:

Wind/Bighorn River Basin Plan. Wyoming Water Development Office. Available on

Internet: http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/bighorn/techmemos/grnddet.html#appd.

State of Wyoming. 2004. Wyoming Statute 9-4-601. Distribution and Use; Funds, Accounts,

Cities and Towns Benefited; Exception for Bonus Payments. Available on Internet:

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/titles/title09/c04a06.htm.

Stewart, B. 2008. Personal communication between Bud Stewart, Wyoming Game and Fish

Department, and J. Sidon, Science Applications International Corporation. February.

Stynes, D.J. and E.M. White. 2003. Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors. Joint

Venture Agreement Between U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service Inventory

and Monitoring Institute and Michigan State University, Joint Venture Agreement

#01JV-11130149-203.

Sweetwater County. 2002. Sweetwater County Comprehensive Plan. Available on Internet:

http://www.sweet.wy.us/pz/dev_codes/comprehensive_plan/Comprehensive_Plan.pdf.

Accessed December 16, 2010.

Sweetwater County Conservation District. 2005. Sweetwater County Conservation

District Land and Resource Use Plan and Policy. Available on Internet:

http://www.swccd.U.S./plansandpolicies/landresourceuseplan.html. Accessed September

24, 2010.

Taylor, D.T. 2010. Personal Communication between D.T. Taylor, Professor - Department of

Agricultural Economics, University of Wyoming, and T. Robert Fetter, SAIC. March 2010.

Taylor, D.T. and R.H. Coupal. 2000. The Cost of Rural Community Services in Wyoming.

Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming. Laramie,

Wyoming. June.

Taylor, D.T., R.H. Coupal, T. Foulke, and J.G. Thompson. 2004. The Economic Importance

of Livestock Grazing on BLM Land in Fremont County Wyoming. Department of

Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming. October.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1389

Thorson, T.A. 1983. Commercial Development of Big Horn Basin Bentonite Reserves; Wyoming

Geological Association Thirty-Fourth Annual Field Conference Guidebook, Geology of

the Bighorn Basin. September 17-21, 1983. Billings, Montana. pp. 167-170.

Towry, R.K., Jr. 1984. Wildlife Habitat Requirements. Pages 73-211. In: Hoover, R.L. and D.L.

Wills, edited. Managing Forested Lands for Wildlife. Colorado Division of Wildlife

in cooperation with U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Region. Denver, CO.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Table H6. Occupancy Status

[3] - Universe: Housing Units.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. Poverty Thresholds for 2007 by Size of Family and Number of

Related Children Under 18 Years. Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.

Available on Internet: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008a. American Community Survey. Available on Internet:

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/. Accessed September 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008b. 2007 County Business Patterns (NAICS). Carbon,

Fremont, Hot Springs, Natrona, and Sweetwater Counties. Available on Internet:

http://censtats.census.gov/cbpnaic/cbpnaic.shtml. Accessed September 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008c. Table 1: 2007 Poverty and Median Income Estimates – Counties.

U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Estimates Branch. Released December 2008.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009a. Annual County Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race,

and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008. Population Division. Washington, D.C.

Released May 14. Available on Internet: http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/asrh/.

Accessed June 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009b. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and

Hispanic Origin for States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009c. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex,

Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008

(NC-EST2008-03). Population Division. Washington, D.C. Available on Internet:

http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2008-srh.html. Accessed June 2009.

University of Wyoming. 1994. GAP Analysis Program (GAP) Data.

University of Wyoming. 2008. Drought. Available on Internet: http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/sco/

drought/drought.html. Accessed August 25, 2009.

USDA. 1997. 1997 Census of Agriculture – State Data. Available on Internet: http://

www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/Vol_1_National,_State_and_County_Tables/

ac97awy.pdf.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1390 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

USDA. 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States,

the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.

Available on Internet: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/mlra/.

USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture: Wyoming State and County Data.

Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 50, AC-07-a-50. Available on

Internet: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/

Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Wyoming/wyv1.pdf.

USDA - NASS (United States Department of Agriculture – National Agricultural

Statistics Service). 2009. 2009 Wyoming Agricultural Statistics. Available on

Internet: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Wyoming/Publications/

Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/bulletin2009.pdf. Accessed August 2009.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2004a. Percentage of County Area in Public Land Cover, 2000. U.S.

Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, Recreation, Wilderness, Urban Forest, and

Demographic Trends Research Group. Athens, Georgia.

USFS. 2004b. Disturbed Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP). Available on Internet:

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/fswepp/wd/weppdist.pl.

USFS. 2008. Black Hills National Forest - FY 2007 Monitoring and Evaluation Report.

USFS. 2009a. Draft Proposed Land Management Plan Shoshone National Forest. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available on Internet: http://www.fs.fed.U.S./r2/shoshone/

projects/planning/revision/revision_documents/april_2009/2009_0413_plan.pdf.

Accessed September 23, 2010.

USFS. 2009b. Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available on Internet:

http://www.fs.fed.us/cdt/.

USFS and BLM (U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management). 1992. Grazing Fee

Review and Evaluation: Update of the 1986 Final Report. Washington, D.C.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. Platte River Minor Water Depletion Biological

Opinion. Amendment to the Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation for Federal Agency

Actions Resulting in Minor Water Depletions to the Platte River System to Extend the

Period of Coverage for Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Measures. U.S. Department

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region. Denver, Colorado.

USFWS. 2002a. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use

Disturbances. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.

USFWS. 2002b. Revised Intra-Service Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation for

Federal Agency Actions Resulting in Minor Water Depletions to the Platte River System.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. March 2002.

USFWS. 2004. Pathfinder Interim Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December.

USFWS. 2008a. Species List for the Lander Field Office.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1391

USFWS. 2008b. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

– Wyoming. FHW/06-WY. Available on Internet: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/

fhw06-wy.pdf. May.

USFWS. 2010. Federal Register - 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater

Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered. March 5, 2010.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

USFWS and BLM (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management). 2000.

Interagency Memorandum of Agreement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1999. Environmental Setting of the Yellowstone River Basin,

Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources

Investigation Report 98-4269.

USGS. 2001. Water Resources Data, Water Year 2001. Available on Internet:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/WDR_WY_01/pdf/WDR_WY_01_1.pdf.

USGS. 2002. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Southwestern Wyoming

Province. National Assessment of Oil and Gas Fact Sheet, FS-145-02, 2 pp. Available on

Internet: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-145-02/.

USGS. 2005a. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Wind

River Province: USGS Fact Sheet, FS-2005-3141, 2 pp. Available on Internet:

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/noga/.

USGS. 2005b. Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the Southwestern

Wyoming Province, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah: National Assessment of Oil and

Gas Project, USGS Digital Data Series DDS-69-D, Version 1.0. Available on Internet:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-d/.

USGS. 2008. Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the Wind

River Province, Wyoming: Digital Data Series 069-J. Available on Internet:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-j/.

USGS. 2010. Climate Change in Mountain Ecosystems. U.S. Geological Survey. Available on

Internet: www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/global.htm. Accessed July 27, 2010.

USGS, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Wyoming DEQ. 2000. Pesticides in

Ground Water - Fremont County, Wyoming, 1998-99. Available on Internet:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs03500/.

Valentine, J.F. 1990. Grazing Management. San Diego, California: Academic Press, Inc.

Ver Ploeg, A.J. 1986. Reconnaissance Examination of Selected Oil Sand and Oil Spring

Occurrences In Wyoming: Wyoming State Geological Survey Open File Report 86-14,

47p. Also published by DOE as DOE/LC/10916-1984.

WAFWA (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). 2003. Mule Deer: Changing

Landscapes, Changing Perspectives. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1392 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Wallace, G.N., J.E. Mitchell, and M.D. Wells. 1996. Visitor Perceptions About Cattle Grazing

on National Forest Land. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service Research

Paper RM-RP-321. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,

Colorado.

WARMS (Wyoming Air Resource Monitoring System). 2009. Available on Internet:

http://12.183.80.118/station.php.

Westerling, A.L, H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetam. 2006. Warming and Earlier

Spring Increase Western U.S. Wildfire Activity. Science 313(5789):940-943.

Western Regional Climate Center Data. 2009. Historical Climate Information. Available on

Internet: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu.

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). 2003. Determining the Value of Wildlife

Associated Recreation per U.S. Bureau of Land Management Field Office Region in

Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

WGFD. 2005. A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Wyoming. Wyoming

Game and Fish Department. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Available on Internet:

http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/CompConvStrategy/index.asp.

WGFD. 2008. 2007 Annual Report. Available on Internet: http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/

annualreports/2007/WGFD2007AnnualReport.pdf. March.

WGFD. 2009a. Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Important

Wildlife Habitats. Version 4.0. Revised November 2009. Wyoming Game and Fish

Department. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

WGFD. 2009b. The Wyoming Mule Deer Initiative. Prepared by the Mule Deer Working Group,

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. April 24, 2009.

WGFD. 2010. Wildlife Protection Recommendations for Wind Energy Development in

Wyoming. Commission Approved April 23, 2010. Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Cheyenne, Wyoming.

WGFD. 2011. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to

be Consistent with Wyoming Executive Order 2011–5; Greater Sage-Grouse Core

Area Protection. July 8, 2011. Available on Internet: http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/

Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/SG_TREATINGSAGEBRUSHPROTOCOL0000668.pdf.

WGFD. 2012. Walk-in Hunt Areas. Available on Internet: http://wgfd.wyo.gov/plpwhmprogram/

frmWalkinHuntingHome.aspx.

Whicker, A., and J.K. Detling. 1988. Ecological Consequences of Prairie Dog Disturbances.

Bioscience 38(11):778-785.

Whitcomb, H.A. and M.E Lowry. 1968. Ground-Water Resources and Geology of the Wind

River Basin Area, Central Wyoming: Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-270, scale

1:250 000, 3 sheets, 13 pp.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1393

WIA (Wyoming Infrastructure Authority). 2009. Map of the Current Projects Under

Development. Available on Internet: http://wyia.org/projects. Accessed September

2, 2009.

WLSO (Wyoming Legislative Service Office). 2003. Short Report: Background and Framework

for Business Taxation. Written by D.C. Richards and B.P. Farmer. Wyoming Legislative

Service Office. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

WRAP (Western Regional Air Partnership). 2005. 2002 Fire Emission Inventory For the

WRAP Region - Phase II. Western Regional Air Partnership. Available on Internet:

http://www.wrapair2.org/. July.

WSGS (Wyoming State Geological Survey). 2002. State Geological Survey Completes

Rattlesnake Hills Geologic Map. Office of the Wyoming State Geologist Press Release,

September 13, 2002. 1 p.

WSGS. 2012. Wind/Bighorn River Basin Water Plan Update, Groundwater Study, Level 1

(2008-2011). Available on Internet: http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/bighorn/2010/

finalrept/gw_toc.html.

WSWG (Wild Sheep Working Group). 2012. Domestic Sheep and Goat Management in Wild

Sheep Habitat. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

WTT (Wyoming Travel and Tourism). 2007. Discover the Impact of Tourism in Wyoming –

2006 Impact Report. Available on Internet: http://www.wyomingbusiness.org/tourism/

traveltourismresearch.aspx.

WWDC (Wyoming Water Development Commission). 2010. Wyoming State Water Plan,

Wind-Bighorn Basin Plan Update. Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc., Harvey Economics,

and Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc.

Wyoming Board of Agriculture and the Wyoming Weed and Pest Council. 2010.

Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act Designated List. Available on Internet:

http://www.wyoweed.org/statelist.html.

Wyoming Department of Agriculture. 2010. Weed and Pest Declared List (by County).

Available on Internet: http://www.wyoweed.org/Documents/DocumentPage/

2010%20Declared%20List.pdf.

Wyoming Department of Education. 2008a. Historical District Assessed Valuations for

1999 through 2008. Available on Internet: http://www.k12.wy.us/statistics/stat1/

2008_historical_district_assessed_valuations_for_1999_through_2008.pdf. Accessed

September 2009.

Wyoming Department of Education. 2008b. Education Report Series #2, Historical

Enrollment by Grade and District for Years 1999 Through 2008. Available on Internet:

http://www.k12.wy.us/statistics/stat2/2008_historical_enrollment.pdf. Accessed

September 2009.

Wyoming Department of Employment. 2009a. Table 10A: Wyoming Statewide Employing Units,

Employment, & Wages by NAICS Subsectors, All Ownerships, Fourth Quarter, 2008.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1394 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Available on Internet: http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/08Q4_QCEW/08q4t10.htm. Accessed

September 2009.

Wyoming Department of Employment. 2009b. Table 120: Employing Units, Employment, &

Wages by NAICS Subsectors for Carbon County - Central Region - Fourth Quarter 2008.

Available on Internet: http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/08Q4_QCEW/08q4t120.htm. Accessed

September 2009.

Wyoming Department of Employment. 2009c. Table 125: Employing Units, Employment, &

Wages by NAICS Subsectors for Natrona County - Central Region - Fourth Quarter

2008. Available on Internet: http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/08Q4_QCEW/08q4t125.htm.

Accessed September 2009.

Wyoming Department of Employment. 2009d. Table 50: Employing Units, Employment, &

Wages by NAICS Subsectors for Fremont County – Northwest Region - Fourth Quarter

2008. Available on Internet: http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/08Q4_QCEW/08q4t50.htm.

Accessed September 2009.

Wyoming Department of Employment. 2009e. Table 53: Employing Units, Employment, &

Wages by NAICS Subsectors for Hot Springs County – Northwest Region - Fourth Quarter

2008. Available on Internet: http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/08Q4_QCEW/08q4t53.htm.

Accessed September 2009.

Wyoming Department of Employment. 2009f. Table 7: Wyoming Statewide Covered

Employment, Total Wages, & Average Weekly Wages by NAICS Industries, Fourth

Quarters 2007 and 2008. Available on Internet: http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/08Q4_QCEW/

08q4t7.htm. Accessed September 2009.

Wyoming Department of Employment. 2009g. Table 89: Employing Units, Employment, &

Wages by NAICS Subsectors for Sweetwater County – Southwest Region - Fourth Quarter

2008. Available on Internet: http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/08Q4_QCEW/08q4t89.htm.

Accessed September 2009.

Wyoming DEQ (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality). 2006. Wyoming’s 2006

305(b) Integrated State Water Quality Assessment Report. Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Wyoming DEQ. 2008a. Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1. Wyoming

Department of Environmental Quality. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Wyoming DEQ. 2008b. Abandoned Mine Land Division. Lander Office. Personal communication

regarding status of AML projects within the Lander Field Office.

Wyoming DEQ. 2009. Air Quality Division. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

Cheyenne, Wyoming. Available on Internet: http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/.

Wyoming DEQ. 2010a. Wyoming Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2010

Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Document #10-0230.

Wyoming DEQ. 2010b. The Chapter 6 Section 2 Oil and Gas Production Facilities Permitting

Guidance. March.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1395

Wyoming DEQ. No Date-a. Abandoned Mine Land Division. Abandoned Mine Land General

Information.

Wyoming DEQ. No Date-b. Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards – Implementation

Policies for Anti-degradation, Mixing Zones, Turbidity, Use Attainability Analysis.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

Wyoming Department of Transportation. 2009. The Wyoming Scenic Byways and Backways

Program.

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. 2001. Crime in Wyoming - Annual Report

for Year 2000. Available on Internet: http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/

CrimeInWyomingReports.html. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. 2002. Crime in Wyoming - Annual Report

for Year 2001. Available on Internet: http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/

CrimeInWyomingReports.html. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. 2003. Crime in Wyoming - Annual Report

for Year 2002. Available on Internet: http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/

CrimeInWyomingReports.html. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. 2004. Crime in Wyoming - Annual Report

for Year 2003. Available on Internet: http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/

CrimeInWyomingReports.html. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. 2005. Crime in Wyoming - Annual Report

for Year 2004. Available on Internet: http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/

CrimeInWyomingReports.html. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. 2006. Crime in Wyoming - Annual Report

for Year 2005. Available on Internet: http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/

CrimeInWyomingReports.html. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. 2007. Crime in Wyoming - Annual Report

for Year 2006. Available on Internet: http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/

CrimeInWyomingReports.html. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. 2008. Crime in Wyoming - Annual Report

for Year 2007. Available on Internet: http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/

CrimeInWyomingReports.html. Accessed September 2009.

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. 2009. Crime in Wyoming - Annual Report

for Year 2008. Available on Internet: http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/

CrimeInWyomingReports.html. Accessed September 2009.

Wyoming DOR (Wyoming Department of Revenue). 1999. 1999 Annual Report. Available on

Internet: http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3=10.

Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming DOR. 2000. 2000 Annual Report. Available on Internet: http://revenue.state.wy.us/

PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3=10. Accessed February 2008.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
1396 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Wyoming DOR. 2001a. 2001 Annual Report. Available on Internet: http://revenue.state.wy.us/

PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3=10. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming DOR. 2001b. Property Tax System in Wyoming. Available on Internet:

http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/uploads/propertytaxsystem.pdf. Accessed July

9, 2004.

Wyoming DOR. 2001c. Severance Tax Rates. Available on Internet: http://revenue.state.wy.us/.

Wyoming DOR. 2002. 2002 Annual Report. Available on Internet: http://revenue.state.wy.us/

PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3=10. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming DOR. 2003. 2003 Annual Report. Available on Internet: http://revenue.state.wy.us/

PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3=10. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming DOR. 2004. 2004 Annual Report. Available on Internet: http://revenue.state.wy.us/

PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3=10. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming DOR. 2005. 2005 Annual Report. Available on Internet: http://revenue.state.wy.us/

PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3=10. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming DOR. 2006. 2006 Annual Report. Available on Internet: http://revenue.state.wy.us/

PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3=10. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming DOR. 2007. 2007 Annual Report. Available on Internet: http://revenue.state.wy.us/

PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3=10. Accessed February 2008.

Wyoming DOR. 2008. 2008 Annual Report. Available on Internet: http://revenue.state.wy.us/

PortalVBVS/uploads/2008%20DOR%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Accessed September

2009.

Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2000. Wyoming Cost of Living for the Second Quarter

2000. Cheyenne, Wyoming. October 3.

Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2002. Population for Wyoming, Counties, Cities, and

Towns: 1990 to 2000. Available on Internet: http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/c Accessed

February 2008.

Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2008. Wyoming Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Revenue

Report. State of Wyoming, Department of Administration and Information, Economic

Analysis Division. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2009a. Wyoming Incorporated Place

Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008. Available on Internet:

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/SUB-08EST.htm. Accessed September 2009.

Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2009b. Wyoming and County Population Estimates: July

2001 to July 2008. Available on Internet: http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/CO-08EST.htm.

Accessed September 2009.

Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2009c. Estimates of the Population by

Age and Sex for Wyoming Counties: 2000 to 2008. Available on Internet:

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/CO_AS08.htm. Accessed September 2009.

Chapter 6 References February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1397

Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2009d. Annual Estimates of Housing Units

for Counties in Wyoming: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008. Available on Internet:

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/cty08hu-est.htm. Accessed September 2009.

Wyoming Economic Analysis Division. 2009e. Wyoming Cost of Living for the Fourth Quarter

2008. State of Wyoming, Department of Administration and Information, Economic

Analysis Division. Cheyenne, Wyoming. March 31.

Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center. 2003. Wyoming Geographic Information

Science Center data.

Wyoming Geological Association. 1989. Wyoming Oil and Gas Fields Symposium: Bighorn

and Wind River Basins: Wyoming Geological Association Oil and Gas Field Symposium

Committee, 598 pp.

Wyoming Housing Database Partnership. 2009. A Profile of Wyoming Demographics, Economics

and Housing, Semiannual Report, Ending December 31, 2008. Available on Internet:

http://www.wyomingcda.com/index.php?option=com_content=view=42=94. Accessed

September 2009.

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2008. Wyoming Well Data and

Statistics. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Available on Internet:

http://wogcc.state.wy.us.

Wyoming Sage-Grouse Working Group. 2003. Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Wyoming SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office). 2009. Cutoffs Seminoe. Oregon,

California, Mormon, Pioneer and Pony Express Trails. Available on Internet:

http://wyoshpo.state.wy.us/trailsdemo/seminoecutoff.htm. Accessed August 28, 2009.

Wyoming State Auditor. 2008. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - Basic Financial

Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008. Available on Internet:

http://sao.state.wy.us/CAFR/cafr_report.htm#newestcafr. Accessed September 2009.

Wyoming State Forestry Division. 2001. Wyoming Forest Health Report 1995-1998.

Yarmoloy, C., M. Bayer, and V. Geist. 1988. Behavior Responses and Reproduction of Mule Deer,

Odocoileus hemionus, Does Following Experimental Harassment with an All-Terrain

Vehicle. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102:425-429.

Zouhar, J.K., J.K. Smith, S. Sunderland, and M.L. Brooks. 2008. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems:

Fire and Nonnative Invasive Plants. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-Volume 6. Rocky Mountain Research Station,

Fort Collins, Colorado.

February 2013 Chapter 6 References
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1399

Glossary

Active Use:

The current authorized use, including livestock grazing and conservation use. Active use may

constitute a portion, or all, of permitted use. Active use does include temporary nonuse or

suspended use of forage within all or a portion of an allotment.

Allotment:

An area of land where one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. Allotments are

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered lands, but may also include other federally

managed, state-owned, and private lands. An allotment may include one or more separate

pastures. Livestock numbers and periods of use are specified for each allotment. Allotments

are classified by the following:

Category I – Improve Existing Resource Conditions. Criteria for placing

allotments into this category include: (1) present range condition is

unsatisfactory and where range condition is expected to decline further; (2)

present grazing management is not adequate; (3) the allotment has potential for

medium to high vegetative production but production is low to moderate; (4)

resource conflicts/controversy with livestock grazing are evident; (5) there is

potential for positive economic return on public investment.

Category M – Maintain Existing Resource Conditions. Criteria for placing

allotments into this category include: The category for allotments where (1)

the present range condition and management are satisfactory with good to

excellent condition and will be maintained under present management, or

fair condition and improving with improvement expected to continue under

present management, or opportunities for BLM management are limited

because percentage of public land is low or acreage of public lands is small;

(2) the allotment has a potential for moderate or high vegetative production

and is producing at or near this potential; (3) there are no significant land-use

resource conflicts with livestock grazing; (4) land ownership status may or may

not limit management opportunities; (5) opportunities for positive economic

return from public investment may exist.

Category C – Custodial Management. Criteria for placing allotments into

this category include: The category for allotments where (1) present range

condition is not in a downward trend; (2) the allotment has a low vegetative

production potential and is producing near this level; (3) there may or may

not be limited conflicts between livestock grazing and other resources; (4)

present management is satisfactory or is the only logical management under

existing conditions; and (5) opportunities for a positive economic return on

public investments do not exist.

Analysis Area:

Any lands, regardless of jurisdiction, for which the BLM synthesizes, analyzes, and interprets

data for information that relates to planning for BLM-administered lands.

Animal Unit Month:

A standardized measurement of the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow

unit or its equivalent for 1 month (approximately 800 pounds of forage).

February 2013 Glossary
1400 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Areas Administratively Unavailable to Leasing:

BLM Handbook H-1601-1 – Land Use Planning, Appendix C uses the term areas closed to oil

and gas leasing. Areas administratively unavailable or closed to oil and gas leasing are areas

where it has been determined that other land uses or resource values cannot be adequately

protected with even the most restrictive oil and gas leasing stipulations; appropriate protection

can be ensured only by making the areas administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing

for the life of the plan. Lands currently under lease would remain leased for the life of the

leases. After expiration of these leases, no lands would be available for lease.

Authorized Officer:

A manager/supervisor at a BLM Field Office, District Office, or State Office who has been

delegated to take action pursuant to the various provisions of Title 43 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) – Public Lands.

Authorized Surface-disturbing Activities:

Public Land resource uses/activities that disturb the endemic vegetation, surface geologic

features, and/or surface/near surface soil resources beyond ambient site conditions that are

permitted by previously-approved management actions. Examples of surface-disturbing

activities include: construction of well pads and roads, pits and reservoirs, pipelines and

powerlines, and most types of vegetation treatments (e.g., prescribed fire, etc.). NOTE: Some

resource uses, commodity production and other actions that remove vegetative growth,

geologic materials, or soils (e.g., livestock grazing, wildlife browsing, timber harvesting,

sand and gravel pits, etc.) are allowed, and in some instances formally authorized, on the

public lands. When utilized as a land use restriction, (e.g., No Surface-Disturbing Activities),

this phrase prohibits all resource use or activity, except those uses and activities that are

specifically authorized, likely to disturb the endemic vegetation, surface geologic features,

and surface/near surface soils.

Avoidance Areas:

Areas where negative routing factors exist. Rights-of-way (ROWs) either will not be granted

in these areas, or, if granted, will be subject to stringent terms and conditions. In other words,

ROWs would be restricted, but not necessarily prohibited, in avoidance areas. Special

stipulations will likely apply. Current avoidance criteria are provided in Appendix E (p. 1483).

Big Game Crucial Winter Range:

Winter habitat on which a wildlife species depends for survival. Because of severe weather

conditions or other limiting factors, no alternative habitat would be available.

Borrow Material:

A term used in conjunction with construction. The term refers to unprocessed material

excavated from a borrow pit for use as fill at another location.

Carbon Dioxide Flood:

A carbon dioxide flood is an enhanced oil recovery technique that injects fluid into the

reservoir. When carbon dioxide is injected, it mixes with the oil and the two compounds

dissolve into one another. The injected carbon dioxide acts as a solvent to overcome forces

that trap oil in tiny rock pores and helps sweep the immobile oil left behind after the

effectiveness of water injection decreases, resulting in increased oil production.

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1401

Casual Use:

One of the three types of operations for locatable minerals (43 CFR 3809 et seq.). Casual

use means “activities ordinarily resulting in no or negligible disturbance of the public lands

or resources” (43 CFR 3809.5). An example of casual use is collection of rock or mineral

specimens using hand tools or nonmotorized sluicing. It may include the use of small portable

suction dredges. Casual use does not include the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment

or truck-mounted drilling equipment and other mechanized devices. See also notice-level

operations and Plan of Operations.

Cheatgrass:

Cheatgrass is an annual grass that forms tufts up to 2 feet tall. The leaves and sheaths are

covered in short, soft hairs. The flowers occur as drooping, open, terminal clusters that can

have a greenish, red, or purple hue. Flowering occurs in the early summer. These annual

plants will germinate in fall or spring (fall is more common), and senescence usually occurs in

summer. Cheatgrass invades rangelands, pastures, prairies, and other open areas. Cheatgrass

has the potential to completely alter the ecosystems it invades. It can completely replace

native vegetation and change fire regimes and is most problematic in areas of the western

United States with lower precipitation levels.

Class II Wells:

Injection wells that are:

(1) Brought to the surface in connection with natural gas storage operations,

or conventional oil or natural gas production, and may be commingled

with wastewaters from gas plants, which are an integral part of production

operations, unless those waters are classified as a hazardous waste at the time

of injection.

(2) For enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas.

(3) For storage of hydrocarbons that are liquid at standard temperature and

pressure.

Class I Wells:

Injection wells that are:

(1) Wells used by generators of hazardous waste or owners or operators of

hazardous waste management facilities to inject hazardous waste beneath

the lowermost formation containing, within 1⁄4 mile of the wellbore, an

underground source of drinking water.

(2) Other industrial and municipal disposal wells that inject fluid beneath

the lowermost formation containing, within 1⁄4 mile of the wellbore, an

underground source of drinking water.

(3) Radioactive waste disposal wells that inject fluid below the lowermost

formation containing, within 1⁄4 mile of the wellbore, an underground source

of drinking water.

Closed:

Generally denotes that an area is not available for a particular use or uses; refer to specific

definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual programs.

February 2013 Glossary
1402 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Commodity:

An economic good, such as a product of agriculture or mining.

Commodity Production:

The materialization of an economic good, such as a product of agriculture or mining.

Communication Site Management Plan:

A plan that provides for effective administration of a communications site. The site plan

defines the principles and technical standards adopted in the site designation. The site plan

provides direction for the day-to-day operations of the site in connection with the lease. The

site plan shall delineate the types of uses that are appropriate at this site and the technical and

administrative requirements for management of the site. The site plan should reflect the

complexity of the current situation and the anticipated demand for the site.

Comprehensive Grazing Strategy:

A Comprehensive Grazing Strategy is a management approach that incorporates a documented

grazing prescription that tailors the timing and intensity (utilization) of grazing to specific

vegetation objectives to maintain, or make significant progress toward, fulfillment of the

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. The grazing prescription is clearly linked to

the physiological requirements of the species identified in the objectives and is considerate

of other resource values (e.g., greater sage-grouse and critical wildlife habitats). Objectives

are established for locations preferred by livestock. A Comprehensive Grazing Strategy

gives specific attention to the critical growing season on upland ranges and the hot season in

riparian-wetland habitat. The kind and class of livestock along with the season of use will

affect the timing and intensity requirements.

Comprehensive Weed Management Plan:

A plan for controlling invasive plant species that incorporates integrated weed management

techniques and accounts for pertinent considerations, such as management actions and

allocations affecting weeds.

Congressionally Designated Trails:

In 1968, the National Trails System Act (NTSA) (Public Law 90-543) provided for the

development of a national system of trails in urban, rural, and wilderness settings. Originally,

the NTSA specified three categories of national trails: National Scenic Trails (NSTs),

recreation trails, and connecting or side trails. In 1978, historic trails were added as another

category. Today, only Congress can designate National Historic Trails (NHTs) and NSTs.

Congressionally Designated Trails in the planning area include the Continental Divide

National Scenic Trail (CDNST) and the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony

Express NHTs. Management of Congressionally Designated Trails is guided by Instruction

Memorandum 2009-215 (Planning for Special Designations within the National System of

Public Lands).

Controlled Surface Use:

Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or prohibited unless the operator and surface

managing agency arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts. Identified

resource values require special operational constraints that may modify the lease rights.

Controlled surface use is used for operating guidance, not as a substitute for the No Surface

Occupancy (NSO) or Timing Limitation Stipulations (TLS).

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1403

Cooperative Monitoring:

Joint monitoring by more than one entity.

Core Area:

Executive Order 2008-2, which was superseded by Executive Order 2010-4 and again by

2011-5, issued by the Governor of Wyoming, delineated a Core Area to protect populations of

greater sage-grouse in the state. The Order also outlines restrictions on the density of future

development and other human activities that limit impacts to greater sage-grouse populations.

Cultural Resource Inventory Levels:

A three-tiered process for discovering, recording, and evaluating cultural resources.

(a) Class I – A review of existing literature and oral informant data combined

with an analysis of a specific geographic region (e.g., an area of potential

effect, drainage basin, resource area, etc.).

(b) Class II – A sampling survey usually aimed at developing and testing a

predictive model of cultural resource distribution.

(c) Class III – An on-the-ground survey to discover, record, and evaluate

cultural resources within a specific geographic area (e.g., usually an area of

potential effect for a proposed undertaking).

Decibel (dB):

A unit of measurement of the loudness or strength of a signal. One decibel is considered the

smallest difference in sound level that the human ear can discern. Decibels are a relative

measurement derived from two signal levels; a reference input level and an observed output

level. A decibel is the logarithm of the ratio of the two levels. One Bel is when the output

signal is 10 times that of the input and one decibel is 1/10th of a Bel.

Designated Invasive Species:

Designated invasive species are species that have been formally declared as “noxious” by

federal and state governments in accordance with the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974,

and the Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act of 1973. Table 3.34, “Wyoming Weed and Pest

Control Act Designated List” (p. 382) and Table 3.35, “Declared List of Weeds and Pests by

Counties in the Planning Area” (p. 383) identify species that are formally declared noxious

and invasive species for Wyoming. The list of federal noxious weeds, as defined by the

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, can be found on the Natural Resources Conservation

Service website: http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver.

Designated Roads and Trails:

Specific roads and trails on which some type of motorized vehicle use is allowed, either

seasonally or year-long.

Desired Plant Community:

Of the several plant communities that may occupy a site, the desired plant community is

the community that has been identified through a management plan to best meet the plan’s

objectives for the site. At a minimum, it must protect the site.

Disruptive Activities:

Those public land resource uses/activities that are likely to alter the behavior, displace, or

cause excessive stress to existing animal or human populations occurring at a specific location

February 2013 Glossary
1404 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and/or time. In this context, disruptive activity(ies) refers to those actions that alter behavior

or cause the displacement of individuals such that reproductive success is adversely affected,

or an individual’s physical ability to cope with environmental stress is compromised. This

term does not apply to the physical disturbance of the land surface, vegetation, or features.

Examples of disruptive activities may include noise, human foot or vehicle traffic, domestic

animal roundups, or other human presence regardless of the activity. When administered as

a land use restriction (e.g., No Disruptive Activities), this term may prohibit or limit the

physical presence of sound above ambient levels, light beyond background levels, and/or the

nearness of people and their activities. The term is commonly used in conjunction with

protecting wildlife during crucial life stages (e.g., breeding, nesting, birthing, etc.), although it

could apply to any resource value on the public lands. The use of this land use restriction is

not intended to prohibit all activity or authorized uses.

Ecological Integrity:

The condition of an unimpaired ecosystem as measured by combined chemical, physical

(including physical habitat), and biological attributes.

Ecological Site:

A kind of land with a specific potential natural community and specific physical site

characteristics, differing from other kinds of land in that the site has the ability to produce

distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and to respond to management. Ecological sites

are defined and described with information about soil, species composition, and annual

production.

Ephemeral Stream:

A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation, and whose channel is at all times

above the water table. Confusion over the distinction between intermittent and ephemeral

streams may be minimized by applying Meinzer’s suggestion that the term “ephemeral” be

arbitrarily restricted to streams that do not flow continuously for at least 30 days (Prichard

et al. 1998). Ephemeral streams support riparian-wetland areas when streamside vegetation

reflects the presence of permanent subsurface water.

Exceedance:

An event in which measurements of ambient air quality are above the National Ambient

Air Quality standard (NAAQS) or Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

standard set for a particular pollutant. For example, an annual average nitrogen dioxide

value of 110 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) is an exceedance of both the NAAQS and

Wyoming DEQ annual average standard for nitrogen dioxide of 100 μg/m3.

Exception:

A one time exemption for a particular site within an oil and gas leasehold. Exceptions are

determined on a case-by-case basis and the stipulation continues to apply to all other sites

within the leasehold.

Exclusion Areas:

Areas not available for location of ROWs under any circumstances (BLM 2005b).

Extensive Recreation Management Areas:

Administrative units that require specific management consideration to address recreation use,

demand, or Recreation and Visitor Services program investments. The Extensive Recreation

Management Areas (ERMA) are managed to support and sustain the principal recreation

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1405

activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. Management of ERMAs

is commensurate with management of other resources and resource uses.

Final Reclamation:

The long germ goal identified by the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (WY-2012-034) to

facilitate eventual native plant community and ecosystem reconstruction to maintain a safe

and stable landscape, and meet the desired outcomes of the land use plan.

Fire Management Plan:

Identifies appropriate strategies to achieve resource objectives. Identifies fire policy,

objectives, and prescribed actions; may include maps, charts, tables, and statistical data.

Fire Regime Condition Class:

A classification of the amount of departure from the natural fire regime. The departure results

in changes to one or more of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics

(e.g., species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern),

fuel composition, fire frequency, severity, and pattern, and other associated disturbance (e.g.,

insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought). The three condition classes are listed

below.

(a) Condition Class 1

● The historic disturbance regime is largely intact and functioning (e.g., has

not missed a fire return interval).

● Potential intensity and severity of fire within historic range.

● Effects of disease and insects within historic range.

● Hydrologic functions within normal historic range.

● Vegetation composition and structure resilient to disturbances.

● Nonnative species currently not present or to a limited extent.

● Low risk of loss for key ecosystem components.

(b) Condition Class 2

● Moderate alterations to historic disturbance regime evident (e.g., missed

one or more fire return intervals).

● Effects of disease and insects pose an increased risk of loss of key

community components.

● Riparian-wetland areas and associated hydrologic function show

measurable signs of adverse departure from historic conditions.

● Vegetation composition and structure shifted toward conditions less

resilient to disturbances.

● Populations of nonnative species may have increased, increasing the risk of

further increases following disturbance.

February 2013 Glossary
1406 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

(c) Condition Class 3

● Historic disturbance regime significantly altered; historic disturbance

processes and impacts may be precluded (e.g., missed several fire return

intervals).

● Effects of disturbance (fire, insects, and disease) may cause significant or

complete loss of key community components.

● Hydrologic functions may be adversely altered; high potential for increased

sedimentation and reduced streamflows.

● Invasive, nonnative species may be common and in some cases the

dominant species on the landscape; disturbance will likely increase both

the dominance and geographic extent of these invasive species.

● Highly altered vegetation composition and structure predisposes

community to disturbance events outside the range of historic availability;

disturbance may have effects not observed or measured before.

Fire Return Interval:

The number of years between two successive fire events at a specific site or area.

Flaring/Venting:

The controlled burning (flare) or release (vent) of natural gas that cannot be processed for sale

or use because of technical or economic reasons.

Floodplain Connectivity:

Maintenance of lateral, longitudinal, and vertical pathways for biological and hydrological

processes in the floodplain. Examples of failures to maintain connectivity could include

culverts or levees that restrict flow in the floodplain and that focus overbank flow into the

channel.

Flushing Livestock:

Flushing livestock is the holding of livestock in an invasive, nonnative plant species seed-free

area where they are fed an invasive, nonnative plant species seed-free ration for 72 hours, thus

flushing invasive, nonnative plant species seed from the animals’ digestive systems.

Foreground-Middle Ground Zone:

An area that can be seen from a travel route for a distance of 3 miles (foreground) to 5 miles

(middle ground) where management activities might be viewed. A distance from 5 to 15 miles

is called the Background Zone and the area beyond 15 miles is called the Seldom-Seen Zone.

Geologic Resources:

Resources associated with the scientific study of the Earth, including its composition,

structure, physical properties, and history. Geologic resources commonly include the study of

minerals (mineralogy) and rocks (petrology), the structure of the Earth (structural geology)

and volcanic phenomena (volcanology), and landforms and the processes that produce them

(geomorphology and glaciology).

Goal:

A broad statement of a desired outcome. Goals are usually not quantifiable and may not

have established timeframes for achievement.

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1407

Grazing Relinquishment:

The voluntary and permanent surrender by an existing permittee or lessee (with concurrence

of any base property lineholder(s)), of their priority (preference) to use a livestock forage

allocation on public land as well as their permission to use this forage. Relinquishments do

not require consent or approval by the BLM. The BLM’s receipt of a relinquishment is not a

decision to close areas to livestock grazing.

Guzzler:

A water development for wildlife.

Heavy Equipment Use:

This phrase is used in fire management and is relative to limiting fire suppression tactics. In

this context it refers to not using dozers, skidders, or graders in areas where important resource

values are in need of protection. Fire engines and water tenders used during suppression

activities would be allowed.

Held by Production:

Leases that become productive and do not terminate until all wells on the lease have ceased

production.

Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record:

The Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record

(HABS/HAER) is an integral component of the federal government’s commitment to historic

preservation. The program documents important architectural, engineering and industrial

sites throughout the United States and its territories. A complete set of HABS/HAER

documentation, consisting of measured drawings, large-format photographs, and written

history plays a key role in accomplishing the mission of creating an archive of American

architecture and engineering and in better understanding what historic resources tell us about

America’s diverse ethnic and cultural heritage. To insure that such evidence is not lost to

future generations, the HABS/HAER Collections are archived at the Library of Congress,

where they are made available to the public.

Hot Season:

The part of the grazing season that occurs during the hot part of the summer between June

15 and August 31.

Hummocking:

A small, rounded or cone-shaped, low hill or a surface of other small, irregular shapes.

Impact Analysis for Planning 2000 Model:

Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) 2000 Model is a regional economic model that

provides a mathematical accounting of the flow of money, goods, and services through

a region’s economy. The model provides estimates of how a specific economic activity

translates into jobs and income for the region. It includes the “ripple effect” (also called the

“multiplier effect”) of changes in economic sectors that may not be directly impacted by

management actions, but are linked to industries that are directly impacted. In IMPLAN,

these ripple effects are termed indirect impacts (for changes in industries that sell inputs to the

industries that are directly affected) and induced impacts (for changes in household spending

as household income increases or decreases due to the changes in production).

February 2013 Glossary
1408 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Important Wildlife Habitat:

Big game crucial winter range, big game parturition areas, designated critical migration

corridors, sage-grouse breeding and nesting areas, raptor concentration areas, and critical

fish spawning areas.

Integrated Pest Management:

Ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage

through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation,

modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after

monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are

made with the goal of removing only the target organism.

Integrated Weed Management:

The use of all appropriate weed control measures, including fire, as well as mechanical,

chemical, biological, and cultural techniques, in an organized and coordinated manner on

a site-specific basis.

Interim Reclamation:

The short-term goal identified by the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (WY-2012-034) to

immediately stabilize disturbed areas and provide conditions necessary to achieve the long

term goal.

Intermittent Stream:

A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from springs

or from some surface source such as melting snow in mountainous areas. Confusion over

the distinction between intermittent and ephemeral streams may be minimized by applying

Meinzer’s suggestion that the term “intermittent” be arbitrarily restricted to streams that flow

continuously for periods of at least 30 days (Prichard et al. 1998).

Land Tenure:

To improve the manageability of the BLM-administered lands and improve their usefulness

to the public, the BLM has numerous authorities for “repositioning” lands into a more

consolidated pattern, disposing of lands, and entering into cooperative management

agreements. These land-pattern improvements are completed primarily through the use of

land exchanges, but also through land sales, jurisdictional transfers to other agencies, and

through the use of cooperative management agreements and leases. These ownership or

jurisdictional changes are referred as “Land Tenure Adjustments.”

Laramide Orogeny:

The Laramide orogeny (orogeny is the Greek word for mountain building) was a period of

mountain building in western North America which began during the Late Cretaceous period,

70 to 80 million years ago, and ended 35 to 55 million years ago. The major feature that

was created by this orogeny was the Rocky Mountains, but evidence of this period is found

from Alaska to Mexico and as far east as the Black Hills. The phenomenon is named for the

Laramie Mountains of eastern Wyoming.

Leasable Minerals:

Those minerals or materials subject to lease by the federal government under the Mineral

Leasing Act of 1920. They include coal, phosphate, asphalt, sulphur, potassium, and sodium

minerals; oil and gas, as well as geothermal resources.

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1409

Locatable Minerals:

Minerals subject to exploration, development, and disposal by staking mining claims as

authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This includes deposits of metallic

minerals such as gold, silver, and other uncommon materials not subject to lease or sale.

Major Constraints (Oil and Gas):

Any stipulations or conditions of approval which may restrict the timing or placement of oil

and gas developments and may result in an operator dropping the development proposal.

Major constraints include NSOs, areas of overlapping TLS that last more than 6 months, areas

closed to surface‐disturbing activity, areas where surface‐disturbing activity is prohibited, and

visual resource management (VRM) Class I areas. 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.

Major Right-of-Way:

A Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) ROW grant under 43 CFR Par 2800 et

seq. which the BLM determines to be a Category 4, 5, or 6 type of authorization under 43

CFR 2804.14.

Mechanized Travel:

Moving by means of a mechanical device, such as a bicycle, and not powered by a motor.

Mineral Materials:

Materials such as common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, and clay that

are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws, but can be acquired under the Mineral

Materials Act of 1947, as amended. Also known as salable minerals.

Mineral Withdrawal:

A formal order that withholds federal lands and minerals from entry under the Mining Law

of 1872, as amended, and closes the area to mineral location (i.e., staking mining claims)

and development.

Minor Right-of-Way:

A FLPMA ROW grant under 43 CFR Par 2800 et seq. which the BLM determines to be a

Category 1, 2, or 3 type of authorization under 43 CFR 2804.14.

Mitigation:

(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.

(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its

implementation.

(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.

(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations

during the life of the action.

(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or

environments.

February 2013 Glossary
1410 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Moderate Constraints (Oil and Gas):

Any stipulations or conditions of approval which may restrict the timing or placement

of oil and gas development, but would not otherwise restrict the overall development.

Moderate constraints include all timing restrictions (TLS), controlled surface use, areas where

surface-disturbing activity is avoided, and VRM Class II areas.

Modern Intrusions:

Modern elements or developments that would be out of character with a historic landscape or

resource. Modern intrusions can be visual, audible, or atmospheric. An example of a modern

intrusion is a new structure or building that would be visible from a historic trail or site, whose

setting is primarily historically intact. It could also include a modern scar on the landscape

that would be visible from the trail or site.

Motorized Use:

Use of public lands by means of vehicles that are propelled by motors, such as cars, trucks,

off-highway vehicles (OHVs), motorcycles, etc.

Multiple Use Reservoir:

A human-created lake or pond with a combination of balanced uses, including, but not limited

to, recreation, livestock watering, watershed health, and wildlife and fish.

Native Species Status:

Native Species Status (NSS) refers to the population status of species native to the area in

which their habitats occur. The NSSs are divided into the following categories:

NSS1

● Populations are greatly restricted or declining, extirpation appears possible;

or ongoing significant loss of habitat.

NSS2

● Populations are declining, extirpation appears possible; habitat is restricted

or vulnerable, but no recent or ongoing significant loss; species may be

sensitive to human disturbance.

OR

● Populations are declining or restricted in numbers and/or distribution,

extirpation is not imminent; ongoing significant loss of habitat.

NSS3

● Populations are greatly restricted or declining, extirpation appears possible;

habitat is not restricted, vulnerable, but no loss; species is not sensitive to

human disturbance.

OR

● Populations are declining or restricted in numbers and/or distribution,

extirpation is not imminent; habitat is restricted or vulnerable, but no recent

or ongoing significant loss; species may be sensitive to human disturbance.

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1411

OR

● Species is widely distributed; population status or trends are unknown, but

are suspected to be stable; ongoing significant loss of habitat.

NSS4

● Populations are greatly restricted or declining, extirpation appears possible;

habitat is stable and not restricted.

OR

● Populations are declining or restricted in numbers and/or distribution,

extirpation is not imminent; habitat is not restricted, vulnerable, but no

loss; species is not sensitive to human disturbance.

OR

● Species is widely distributed, population status or trends are unknown, but

are suspected to be stable; habitat is restricted or vulnerable, but no recent

or ongoing significant loss; species may be sensitive to human disturbance.

OR

● Populations that are stable or increasing and not restricted in numbers

and/or distribution; ongoing significant loss of habitat.

Natural Fire Regime:

The general classification of the role fire would play across a landscape in the absence of

modern human mechanical intervention, but including the influence of aboriginal burning

(National Wildfire Coordinating Group 2003).

Nature and Purposes:

The term used to describe the character, characteristics, and Congressional intent for a

designated National Trail, including the resources, qualities, values, and associated settings

of the areas through which such trails may pass; the primary use or uses of a National Trail;

and activities promoting the preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment

and appreciation of National Trails.

Necessary Tasks:

Temporary excursions leaving existing vehicular routes are permitted only to accomplish

necessary tasks. Necessary tasks are actions that support commercial or industrial uses of

public lands, which need to be accomplished by a person or organization seeking or holding

authorization from the BLM to build, maintain, or place infrastructure necessary to achieve

planning goals and objectives, or exercise valid existing rights. Tasks associated with such

activities typically require motorized vehicles to haul materials, tools, and equipment to

the project site.

The majority of necessary tasks will occur as a result of a BLM authorization. At the time of

project authorization, offices will assume and analyze a level of motorized vehicle use for

construction and maintenance. It is feasible that a new road will develop as a result of the

exemption, and therefore offices should consider if this new road will be open to the public,

only for administrative access, or reclaimed. Additional mitigation measures may be necessary

February 2013 Glossary
1412 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

to reduce motorized vehicle impacts. Mitigation measures pertaining to the necessary

task exemption will be included in the terms and conditions, Conditions of Approval, or

stipulations. Monitoring and evaluation will be conducted at these known locations.

Sometimes necessary tasks (as defined above) are and will be accomplished without formal

written approval or in advance of receiving an authorization. Cross-country OHV travel in

these cases is authorized so long as resource damage does not occur. While generally defined,

the determination of whether resource damage has occurred is left to the discretion of field

managers and law enforcement personnel. For this reason, project proponents are encouraged

to contact their local field offices prior to using OHVs cross-country, so as to ensure use will

not cause resource damage. In addition, project proponents must notify the BLM in writing

when and where cross-country travel has occurred prior to an authorization. This can be done

at the application phase, but must occur prior to final authorization.

Other Authorizations and Uses:

It is recognized that in many cases, cross-country motorized vehicle use is the most efficient

tool for operators and industry to achieve BLM (Planning/Resource/Statutory) objectives and

requirements. Livestock herding, scientific studies, habitat treatments, etc., are all examples

of actions that may require cross-country motorized vehicle travel. In these cases, the project

proponent is expected to submit a request for exemption from travel management regulations.

The request for exemption will contain the following elements:

1. Who? Name of company, individuals, agency, and/or other entities traveling

cross-country.

2. Description of proposed action and why the action is necessary to achieve agency

objectives?

3. Type of motorized vehicle to be used and description of how the vehicle will be used

for the proposed action?

4. A map with specific areas where projected cross-country travel is necessary?

5. Season, frequency, and duration of cross-country travel.

6. Why this action can’t be accomplished using nonmotorized conveyances (e.g., horses)?

7. Expected outcome if this authorization is granted? Expected outcome if this

authorization is not granted?

8. Methods and measures to minimize resource damage?

9. Other information.

Waivers/authorizations will be conditional upon consistency with Land Use and Activity Level

planning decisions and other BLM objectives. The project proponent is encouraged to be as

detailed as possible in the application for exception. The BLM will consider an application for

exception complete when the information provided is sufficient to facilitate impact analysis,

enforcement, monitoring, and evaluation. Project proponents are encouraged to submit the

waiver request in tandem with other applications, renewals, or proposals, but the agency will

accept the applications at all times. Waiver applications will not be accepted for individuals

that are being actively investigated for violation of a OHV rule. Waivers and authorizations

will not be granted to individuals who have been convicted of an OHV violation.

Any and all individuals conducting cross-country travel under such a waiver or authorization

will carry a copy of the waiver and conditions associated with the waiver. The project

proponent associated with the waiver will be required on an annual basis to provide an ‘actual

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1413

occurrence’ report that documents the location (legal description), time, and date of each and

all incidents where motorized vehicles were used to travel cross-country or off-road.

Failure to adequately document all occurrence of cross-country or off-road travel will

result in termination of the waiver. Upon evaluation and monitoring, if it is determined

that unacceptable conditions or resource damage is occurring, the waiver may be revoked.

Additionally, if an evaluation shows no increased progress towards objectives and/or

requirements (part 2 of the request information) then the waiver can be revoked.

No Surface Occupancy:

The term “no surface occupancy” is used in two ways. It is used in one way to define a no

surface occupancy (NSO) area where no surface-disturbing activities of any nature or for

any purpose would be allowed. For example, construction or the permanent or long-term

placement of structures or other facilities for any purpose would be prohibited in an NSO area.

The other way the “no surface occupancy” term is used is as a stipulation or mitigation

requirement for controlling or prohibiting selected land uses or activities that would conflict

with other activities, uses, or values in a given area. When used in this way, the NSO

stipulation or mitigation requirement is applied to prohibit one or more specific types

of land and resource development activities or surface uses in an area, while other –

perhaps even similar – types of activities or uses (for other purposes) would be allowed.

For example, protecting important rock art relics from destruction may require closing

the area to the staking of mining claims and surface mining, cross-country vehicle travel,

construction or long-term placement of structures or pipelines, powerlines, general purpose

roads, and livestock grazing. Conversely, the construction of fences to protect the rock art

from vandalism or from trampling or breakage by livestock, an access road or trail, and

other visitor facilities to provide interpretation and opportunity for public enjoyment of

the rock art would be allowed. Further, if there were interest in development of leasable

minerals in the area, leases for oil and gas, coal, and so forth, could be issued with a

“no surface occupancy” stipulation or mitigation requirement for the rock art site, which

would still allow access to the leasable minerals from adjacent lands and underground.

The term “no surface occupancy” has no relationship or relevance to the presence of people

in an area.

Notice-level Operations:

Non-casual use operations that will disturb 5 acres or less of public lands on which reclamation

has not been completed. A notice must be submitted 15 calendar days before exploration is

commenced. See casual use and Plan of Operations and 43 CFR 3809.5.

Objective:

A description of a desired condition for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and measured

and, where possible, have established timeframes for achievement.

Occupied Lek:

A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the last 10 years.

Off-highway Vehicle:

Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water,

or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any nonamphibious registered motorboat; (2) any

military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle being used for emergency purposes;

(3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the Authorized Officer, or otherwise

February 2013 Glossary
1414 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle

when used in times of national defense emergencies.

Off-highway Vehicle Management Designations:

Designations apply to all OHVs regardless of the purposes for which they are being used.

Emergency vehicles are excluded. The OHV designation definitions have been developed

in cooperation with representatives of the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and

the BLM state and field office personnel. The BLM recognizes the differences between

OHVs and over-snow vehicles in terms of use and impact. Therefore, travel by over-snow

vehicles will be permitted off existing routes and in all open or limited areas (unless otherwise

specifically limited or closed to over-snow vehicles) if they are operated in a responsible

manner without damaging the vegetation or harming wildlife.

Closed:

Vehicle travel is prohibited in the area. Access by means other

than motorized vehicle is permitted. This designation is used if

closure to all vehicular use is necessary to protect resources, to

ensure visitor safety, or to reduce conflicts.

Open:

Vehicle travel is permitted in the area (both on and off roads) if

the vehicle is operated responsibly in a manner not causing, or

unlikely to cause, significant undue damage to or disturbance

of the soil, wildlife, wildlife habitats, improvements, cultural

or vegetative resources, or other authorized uses of the public

lands. These areas are used for intensive OHV use where there

are no compelling resource needs, user conflicts, or public

safety issues to warrant limiting cross-country travel.

Limited:

(a) Vehicle travel is permitted only on roads and vehicle routes

which were in existence prior to the date of designation in the

Federal Register. Vehicle travel off of existing vehicle routes is

permitted only to accomplish necessary tasks and only if such

travel does not result in resource damage. Random travel from

existing vehicle routes is not allowed. Creation of new routes or

extensions and/or widening of existing routes are not allowed

without prior written agency approval.

(b) Vehicle travel is permitted only on roads and vehicle routes

designated by the BLM. In areas where final designation has

not been completed, vehicle travel is limited to existing roads

and vehicle routes as described above. Designations are posted

as follows:

1. Vehicle route is open to vehicular travel.

2. Vehicle route is closed to vehicular travel.

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1415

(c) Vehicle travel is limited by number or type of vehicle.

Designations are posted as follows:

1. Vehicle route limited to four-wheel drive vehicles only.

2. Vehicle route limited to motorbikes only.

3. Area is closed to over-snow vehicles.

(d) Vehicle travel is limited to licensed or permitted use.

(e) Vehicle travel is limited to time or season of use.

(f) Where specialized restrictions are necessary to meet

resource management objectives, other limitations also may

be developed.

The BLM may place other limitations, as necessary, to protect other resources, particularly in

areas that motorized OHV enthusiasts use intensely or where they participate in competitive

events.

Offsite Mitigation:

Mitigation located away from the adversely affected site.

Open:

Generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refer to specific

program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual

programs.

Overgrazing:

Continued heavy grazing that exceeds the recovery capacity of the forage plants and creates

deterioration of the grazing lands (Valentine 1990).

Over-snow Vehicle:

An over-snow vehicle is a motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow that runs on a

track or tracks and/or a ski or skis. An over-snow vehicle does not include machinery used

strictly for the grooming of nonmotorized trails.

Perennial Stream:

A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams generally are associated with a water

table in the localities through which they flow (Prichard et al. 1998).

Permitted Use:

The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use plan for livestock

grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease and expressed in animal unit months.

Pest:

With the exception of vascular plants classified as invasive nonnative plant species, a pest

can be any biological life form that poses a threat to human or ecological health and welfare.

For the purposes of this planning effort, an “animal pest” is any vertebrate or invertebrate

animal subject to control by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS is

currently the BLM’s authorized agent for controlling “animal pests.” For this reason, “animal

pests” will be considered a subset of Pest.

February 2013 Glossary
1416 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Planned Ignition:

The intentional initiation of a wildland fire by hand-held, mechanical, or aerial device, where

the distance and timing between ignition lines or points and the sequence of igniting them is

determined by environmental conditions (weather, fuel, topography), firing technique, and

other factors which influence fire behavior and fire effects (see Prescribed Fire).

Planning Area:

A geographic area for which land use and resource management plans are developed and

maintained.

Plan of Operations:

Projects disturbing more than 5 acres require an approved Plan of Operations before work can

begin. Once a Plan of Operations is filed with the BLM, the proposed action is analyzed and

those mitigating measures needed to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation are required

for approval. A Plan of Operations must always be filed, regardless of disturbance acreage,

for activities which exceed casual use and occur in special management areas such as areas of

critical environmental concern, wild and scenic rivers and areas closed to off-road vehicle

use. A Plan of Operations is required in wilderness study areas for other than casual use level

activities. The non-impairment criteria will determine the required mitigating measures

in the Plan of Operations.

Potential Fossil Yield Classification:

Geologic units in the planning area are classified according to the Potential Fossil Yield

Classification, usually at the formation or member level, according to the probability of

yielding resources of concern to land managers, primarily vertebrate fossils. The classification

uses a ranking of 1 through 5, with Class 5 assigned to units with a high potential for fossils.

Within the planning area, Class 4 and Class 5 geologic formations account for approximately

50 percent of the total acreage, including all ownerships. About 35 percent of public land

in the planning area is underlain by Class 4 and Class 5 formations. The classifications are

described as below:

Class 1. Igneous and metamorphic geologic units, or units with highly

disturbed preservational environments that are not likely to contain

recognizable fossil remains. Management concern is negligible for Class 1

resources and mitigation requirements are rare.

Class 2. Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to contain vertebrate

fossils or significant nonvertebrate fossils. Management concern is low for

Class 2 resources and mitigation requirements are not likely.

Class 3. Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies

in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence, or units of unknown

fossil potential. Management concern may extend across the entire range of

management. Ground-disturbing activities require sufficient assessment to

determine whether significant resources occur in the area of the proposed

action.

Class 4. Class 4 units are Class 5 units with a lowered risk of human-caused

adverse impacts or lowered risk of natural degradation. Ground-disturbing

activities require assessment to determine whether significant resources occur

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1417

in the area of the proposed action and whether those actions will impact the

resource. Mitigation may include full monitoring of significant localities.

Class 5. Highly fossiliferous geologic units that regularly produce vertebrate

fossils or significant nonvertebrate fossils and that are at risk of natural

degradation or human-caused adverse impacts. Class 5 areas receive the

highest level of management focus. Mitigation of ground-disturbing actions

is required and may be intense. Areas of special interest may be designated

and intensely managed.

Potential Natural Community:

The biotic community that would become established if all successional sequences were

completed without interference by humans under the present environmental conditions.

Natural disturbances are inherent in development. Potential natural community includes

naturalized nonnative species.

Prairie Dog “Complex”:

Defined as a cluster of two or more prairie dog towns within 3 kilometers of each other (Clark

and Stromberg 1987), and bounded by either natural or artificial barriers (Whicker and Detling

1988), which effectively isolate one cluster of colonies from interacting/interchanging with

another. Prairie dogs may commonly move among colonies of a cluster, and thereby foster

reproductive/genetic viability, but exhibit little emigration/immigration between clusters. A

cluster may include some currently unoccupied, through physically suitable (i.e., vegetation,

soils, topography, etc.), land immediately adjacent to occupied colonies that support other

prairie dog-associated (ecosystem function), obligate or facultative species (e.g., swift fox,

mountain plover, burrowing owl, etc.).

Preference:

A superior or priority position against others for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or

lease. This priority is attached to base property or controlled by a permittee or lessee.

Prescribed Burning:

Controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural or modified state under

specified environmental conditions that allow the fire to be confined to a predetermined

area, and at the same time, to produce the fire intensity and rate of spread required to attain

planned resource management objectives.

Prescribed Fire:

A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet specific objectives identified

in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan for which National Environmental Policy Act

requirements (where applicable) have been met prior to ignition.

Priority Fish Species:

Species considered to be sport fish and native species.

Produced Water:

Groundwater removed to facilitate the extraction of minerals, such as coal, oil, or gas.

Proper Functioning Condition:

The on-the-ground condition of a riparian-wetland area, referring to how well the physical

processes are functioning and the state of resiliency that will allow a riparian-wetland area

February 2013 Glossary
1418 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

to hold together during a high-flow event, sustaining that system’s ability to produce values

related to both physical and biological attributes.

Proper Grazing:

Proper grazing is the practice of managing forage use by grazing animals at a sustainable

level that maintains rangeland health. Proper grazing will maintain or increase plant cover,

including residue, which acts to slow down or reduce runoff, increase water infiltration, and

keep erosion and sedimentation at or above acceptable levels within the potential of ecological

sites within a given geographic area (e.g., watershed, grazing allotment, etc.).

Range Improvement Project:

A structural improvement requiring placement or construction to facilitate management or

control distribution and movement of grazing or browsing animals. Such improvements may

include, but are not limited to, fences, wells, troughs, reservoirs, water catchments, pipelines,

and cattleguards. The project also may include a practice or treatment which improves

rangeland condition and or resource production for multiple use. Nonstructural types of

projects may include, but are not limited to, seeding and plant control through chemical,

mechanical, and biological means or prescribed burning.

Rangeland:

Land on which the native vegetation is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs,

or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing. This includes lands revegetated naturally or

artificially when routine management of that vegetation is accomplished mainly through

manipulation of grazing. Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannas, shrublands, most

deserts, tundra, alpine communities, coastal marshes, and wet meadows.

Rangeland Health:

The degree to which the integrity of the soil and ecological processes of rangeland ecosystems

are sustained.

Raptor:

Bird of prey with sharp talons and a strongly curved beak, such as hawks, falcons, owls,

vultures, and eagles.

Recreational Outcomes:

The beneficial and non-beneficial consequences (i.e., outcomes) of the management and use

of recreation and related amenity resources and programs (Driver 2008).

Recreational Use:

The public is allowed to pursue recreational (e.g., picking up big game kills, camping,

parking) activities up to 300 feet away from roads and trails, as long as such activities do not

cause resource damage or create new roads or extend existing roads. The existing road system

and this cross-country travel allowance is designed to accommodate the needs of recreational

activities on the public lands. This applies only to all “Limited” travel designations.

Recreation Management Areas:

Recreation management areas are classified as either Special Recreation Management Areas

(SRMAs) or ERMAs. The recreation management areas are land units where Recreation and

Visitor Services objectives are recognized as a primary resource management consideration,

and specific management is required to protect the recreation opportunities. The recreation

management area designation is based on recreation demand and issues, recreation setting

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1419

characteristics, resolving use/user conflicts, compatibility with other resource uses, and

resource protection needs (BLM Instruction Memorandum 2011-004 [BLM 2011c]).

Extensive Recreation Management Areas: Administrative units that require

specific management consideration to address recreation use, demand,

or Recreation and Visitor Services program investments. ERMAs are

managed to support and sustain the principal recreation activities and the

associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. Management of ERMAs is

commensurate with management of other resources and resource uses.

Special Recreation Management Areas: Administrative units where

the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting

characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or

distinctiveness, especially compared to other areas used for recreation. The

SRMAs are managed to protect and enhance a targeted set of activities,

experiences, benefits, and desired recreation setting characteristics. SRMAs

may be subdivided into recreation management zones (RMZs) to further

delineate specific recreation opportunities.

Responsible Official:

The BLM official who has been delegated authority to approve an action by signing a Record

of Decision in the matter of an Environmental Impact Statement, or Decision Records in

the matter of an Environmental Assessment.

Restricted Disposal:

Parcels identified for restricted disposal may be disposed of under the Recreation and Public

Purposes Act, by exchange, may limit the disposal to a particular type of entity capable of

preserving the resource values, or may include the use of covenants in the deed or land sale

patent to ensure the resource values are protected.

Retirement:

Ending livestock grazing on a specific area of land.

Rights-of-Way:

A ROW grant is an authorization to use a specific piece of public land for a specific project,

such as roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and communication sites. The grant authorizes

rights and privileges for a specific use of the land for a specific period of time.

Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas:

Areas where adverse routing factors exist. ROWs either will not be granted in these areas, or,

if granted, will be subject to stringent terms and conditions. In other words, ROWs would

be restricted (but not necessarily prohibited) in these avoidance areas (see BLM Manuals

2800 and 2880).

Rights-of-Way Exclusion Area:

Areas with sensitive resource values where ROW and 302 permits, leases, and easements

would not be authorized (see BLM Manuals 2800 and 2880).

Riparian Areas:

Riparian areas are a form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands

and upland areas. These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of

permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with

February 2013 Glossary
1420 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial potholes, playas, and the

shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels, are typical riparian areas. Excluded

are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation

dependent upon free water in the soil.

Riparian-Wetland Functionality Classification:

Functional At-Risk: Riparian-wetland areas that are in functional condition,

but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to

degradation.

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC): A riparian or wetland area is considered

to be in PFC when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is

present to do the following:

● Dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing

erosion and improving water quality.

● Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development.

● Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge.

● Develop root masses that stabilize stream banks against cutting action.

● Develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the

habitats and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish

production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses.

● Support greater biodiversity.

Nonfunctional: Riparian or wetland areas that clearly are not providing

adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream

energy associated with high flows and thus are not reducing erosion, improving

water quality, and so on, as listed above. The absence of certain physical

attributes, such as a floodplain where one should be, are indicators of

nonfunctioning conditions.

Unknown: Riparian or wetland areas that the BLM lacks sufficient information

on to make any form of determination.

Salable Minerals:

See Mineral Materials.

Seasonal Ranges:

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has identified various ranges for big game species.

These ranges are defined as follows:

Summer or Spring-Summer-Fall: A population or portion of a population of

animals use the documented habitats within this range annually from the end of

previous winter to the onset of persistent winter conditions.

Severe Winter Relief: A documented survival range, which may or may not be

considered a crucial range area as defined above. It is used to a great extent, but

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1421

only in extremely severe winters. It may lack habitat characteristics that would

make it attractive or capable of supporting major portions of the population

during normal years, but is used by and allows at least a significant portion of

the population to survive the occasional extremely severe winter.

Winter: A population or portion of a population of animals annually use the

documented suitable habitat sites within this range in substantial numbers

during the winter period only.

Winter/Year-long: A population or a portion of a population of animals makes

general use of the documented suitable habitat sites within this range on a

year-round basis. During the winter months there is a significant influx of

additional animals into the area from other seasonal ranges.

Year-long: A population or substantial portion of a population of animals

makes general use of the suitable documented habitat sites within the range

on a year-round basis. On occasion, animals may leave the area under severe

conditions.

Parturition Areas: Documented birthing areas commonly used by females.

They include calving areas, fawning areas, and lambing grounds. These areas

may be used as nurseries by some big game species.

Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act:

“The head of any federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal

or federally assisted undertaking in any state and the head of any federal department or

independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval

of the expenditure of any federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any

license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district,

site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National

Register of Historic Places. The head of any such federal agency shall afford the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity

to comment with regard to such undertaking” (16 United States Code 47 df).

Sensitive Sites or Resources:

Sensitive sites or resources refer to significant cultural resources that are, or may be eligible,

for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

Sensitive Species:

Species designated as sensitive by the BLM State Director include species that are under

status review, have small or declining populations, live in unique habitats, or require

special management. BLM Manual 6840 provides policy and guidance for special status

species management. The BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List are provided

in a memorandum updated annually. Primary goals of the BLM Wyoming policy include

maintaining vulnerable species and habitat components in functional BLM ecosystems and

preventing a need for species listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Seral Stage:

One of a series of plant communities that follows another in time on a specific ecological site.

February 2013 Glossary
1422 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Setting:

Setting is the physical environment of a historic property and how the property evokes a

sense of feeling and association with past events. Accordingly, setting refers to the character

of the place in which the property played its historic role. It involves how, not just where,

the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. These

features and their relationships should be considered not only within the exact boundaries of

the property, but also between the property and its surroundings.

Special Recreation Management Areas:

Administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and

recreation setting characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or

distinctiveness, especially as compared to other areas used for recreation. The SRMAs are

managed to protect and enhance a targeted set of activities, experiences, benefits, and desired

recreation setting characteristics. SRMAs may be subdivided into RMZs to further delineate

specific recreation opportunities.

Special Status Species:

Special status species are species proposed for listing, officially listed as threatened or

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

of the Endangered Species Act; those listed by a state in a category such as threatened or

endangered, implying potential endangerment or extinction; and those designated by the

State Director as sensitive (BLM 2008e).

Split-estate:

Surface land and mineral estate of a given area under different ownerships. Frequently, the

surface will be privately owned and the minerals federally owned.

Standards for Healthy Rangelands:

A description of the physical and biological conditions or degree of function required for

healthy, sustainable lands (e.g., land health standards).

State-listed Species:

Species proposed for listing or listed by a state in a category implying, but not limited to,

potential endangerment or extinction. Listing is either by legislation or regulation.

Surface-disturbing Activities (or Surface Disturbance):

The physical disturbance and movement or removal of land surface and vegetation. These

activities range from the very minimal to the maximum types of surface disturbance associated

with such things as OHV travel or use of mechanized, rubber-tired, or tracked equipment and

vehicles; some timber cutting and forest silvicultural practices; excavation and development

activities associated with use of heavy equipment for road, pipeline, powerline and other

types of construction; blasting; strip, pit, and underground mining and related activities,

including ancillary facility construction; oil and gas well drilling and field construction or

development and related activities; range improvement project construction; and recreation

site construction.

Surface Water Classes and Uses:

The following water classes are a hierarchical categorization of waters according to existing

and designated uses. Except for Class 1 waters, each classification is protected for its specified

uses plus all the uses contained in each lower classification. Class 1 designations are based

on value determinations rather than use support and are protected for all uses in existence at

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1423

the time of or after designation. There are four major classes of surface water in Wyoming

with various subcategories within each class.

(a) Class 1, Outstanding Waters. Class 1 waters are those surface waters

in which no further water quality degradation by point source discharges

other than from dams will be allowed. Nonpoint sources of pollution shall be

controlled through implementation of appropriate best management practices.

Pursuant to Section 7 of these regulations, the water quality and physical and

biological integrity that existed on the water at the time of designation will be

maintained and protected. In designating Class 1 waters, the Environmental

Quality Council shall consider water quality, aesthetic, scenic, recreational,

ecological, agricultural, botanical, zoological, municipal, industrial, historical,

geological, cultural, archeological, fish and wildlife, the presence of substantial

quantities of developable water, and other values of present and future benefit

to the people.

(b) Class 2, Fisheries and Drinking Water. Class 2 waters are waters, other than

those designated as Class 1 that are known to support fish or drinking water

supplies or where those uses are attainable. Class 2 waters may be perennial,

intermittent, or ephemeral and are protected for the uses indicated in each

subcategory listed below. Five subcategories of Class 2 waters exist.

(c) Class 3, Aquatic Life Other than Fish. Class 3 waters are waters other

than those designated as Class 1 that are intermittent, ephemeral, or isolated

waters, and because of natural habitat conditions, do not support nor have the

potential to support fish populations or spawning or certain perennial waters

that lack the natural water quality to support fish (e.g., geothermal areas).

Class 3 waters provide support for invertebrates, amphibians, or other flora and

fauna that inhabit waters of the state at some stage of their life-cycles. Uses

designated on Class 3 waters include aquatic life other than fish, recreation,

wildlife, industry, agriculture, and scenic value. Generally, waters suitable

for this classification have wetland characteristics; and such characteristics

will be a primary indicator used in identifying Class 3 waters. There are four

subcategories of Class 3 waters.

(d) Class 4, Agriculture, Industry, Recreation, and Wildlife. Class 4 waters are

waters other than those designated as Class 1 where it has been determined

that aquatic life uses are not attainable pursuant to the provisions of Section

33 of these regulations. Uses designated on Class 4 waters include recreation,

wildlife, industry, agriculture and scenic value (Wyoming DEQ No Date-b).

Suspension:

The temporary witholding from active use, through a decision issued by the authorized officer

or by agreement, of part or all, of the permitted use in a grazing permit or lease.

Type E Fence:

Identified as a wildlife-friendly fence type that more effectively accommodates wildlife

passage than other traditional fence types. Four-wire construction allows most wildlife species

to pass over or under the fence and provides adequate containment for livestock.

February 2013 Glossary
1424 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Unique Forest and Woodland Communities:

Forest and woodland habitats recognized as significant for at least one factor such as

density, diversity, size, public interest, remnant character, age, or having limited distribution

throughout the planning area.

Utilization Levels:

The proportion or degree of current year’s forage production that is consumed or destroyed by

animals (including insects). It may refer either to a single plant species, a group of species, or

to the vegetation as a whole, generally expressed as a percentage.

Vegetative Diversity:

The variety of vegetative types in an area, including species, the genetic differences among

species and populations, the communities and ecosystems in which vegetation types occur,

and the structure and seral stage of these communities. Vegetative diversity includes rare, as

well as common vegetative types, and typically supports a diverse array of animal species

and communities.

Viewshed:

Viewshed is used in VRM to describe “... landscape that can be seen under favorable

atmospheric conditions from a viewpoint (key observation point) or along a transportation

corridor” (BLM 1984).

Visual Resource Management Classes:

Class I. The objective of this class is to maintain a landscape setting that

appears unaltered by humans. It is applied to wilderness areas, some natural

areas, wild portions of wild and scenic rivers, and other similar situations in

which management activities are to be restricted.

Class II. The objective of this class is to design proposed alterations so as

to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the

characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen,

but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes

must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Class III. The objective of this class is to design proposed alterations so as to

partially retain the existing character of the landscape. Contrasts to the basic

elements (form, line, color, and texture) caused by a management activity

may be evident and begin to attract attention in the characteristic landscape;

however, the changes should remain subordinate to the existing characteristic

landscape.

Class IV. The objective of this class is to provide for management activities

that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape.

Contrasts may attract attention and be a dominant feature of the landscape in

terms of scale; however, changes should repeat the basic elements (form, line,

color, and texture) inherent in the characteristic landscape.

Rehabilitation Area. Change is needed or change may add acceptable visual

variety to an area. This class applies to areas where the naturalistic character

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1425

has been disturbed to a point at which rehabilitation is needed to bring it back

into character with the surrounding landscape. This class would apply to areas

identified in the scenic evaluation where the quality class has been reduced

because of unacceptable cultural modification. The contrast is inharmonious

with the characteristic landscape. It may also be applied to areas that have the

potential for enhancement; i.e., add acceptable visual variety to an area or

site. It should be considered an interim or short-term classification until one

of the other VRM Class objectives can be reached through rehabilitation or

enhancement. The desired VRM class should be identified.

Visual Resources:

The visible physical features of a landscape (topography, water, vegetation, animals,

structures, and other features) that constitute the scenery of an area.

Waiver:

A permanent exemption of a stipulation.

Wetlands:

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency

and duration sufficient to support, and which, under normal circumstances do support, a

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. BLM Manual

1737, Riparian-Wetland Area Management, includes marshes, shallow swamps, lakeshores,

bogs, muskegs, wet meadows, estuaries, and riparian areas as wetlands.

Wildfire:

An unplanned ignition of a wildland fire (such as a fire caused by lightning, volcanoes,

unauthorized and accidental human-caused fires) and escaped prescribed fires.

Wildland Fire:

A general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland.

Wildland Industrial Interface:

The area where industrial development meets or intermingles with undeveloped wildland.

Wildland-Urban Interface:

The Healthy Forest Recreation Act 2003 defines wildland urban interface (Section 101) as an

area within or adjacent to an at risk community that has been identified by a community in its

wildfire protection plan or, for areas that do not have such a plan, an area extending; (1) 1⁄2

mile from the boundary of an at risk community, or; (2)11⁄2 miles when other criteria are met.

(e.g., a sustained steep slope or a geographic feature aiding in creating an effective fire break

or is condition class III land, or; (3) is adjacent to an evacuation route.

Wildlife-disturbing Activity:

BLM-authorized activities other than routine maintenance that may cause displacement of or

excessive stress to wildlife during critical life stages. Wildlife-disturbing activities include

human presence, noise, and activities using motorized vehicles or equipment.

Wind River Indian Reservation:

Indian reservation shared by the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes of Native

Americans in the central western portion of Wyoming. It is the seventh-largest Indian

reservation by area in the United States, encompassing a land area of 3,473.272 square miles.

It encompasses just over one-third of Fremont County and over one-fifth of Hot Springs

February 2013 Glossary
1426 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

County, and the reservation is located in the Wind River Basin, surrounded by the Wind River

Mountain Range, Owl Creek Mountains, and the Absaroka Mountains.

Withdrawal:

Removal or withholding of public lands, by statute or Secretarial order, from operation of

some or all of the public land laws. A mineral withdrawal includes public lands potentially

valuable for leasable minerals, precluding the disposal of the lands except with a mineral

reservation clause, unless the lands are found not to contain a valuable deposit of minerals. A

mineral withdrawal is the closing of an area to mineral location and development activities.

Yellowcake:

Yellowcake is the product of the uranium extraction (milling) process. Early production

methods resulted in a bright yellow compound, hence the name yellowcake. The material

is a mixture of uranium oxides that can vary in proportion and color from yellow to orange

to dark green (blackish), depending at which temperature the material was dried (level of

hydration and impurities). Higher drying temperatures produce a darker, less soluble material.

Yellowcake is commonly referred to as U3O8 and is assayed as pounds U3O8 equivalent.

This fine powder is packaged in drums and sent to a conversion plant that produces uranium

hexafluoride as the next step in the manufacture of nuclear fuel.

Glossary February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1427

Appendix A. Federal Laws, Regulations,

Policies, Guidance, and Other Applicable

Mandates and Authority

Table A.1. Federal Laws and Statutes

Federal Law or Statute Year

Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (31

United States Code [U.S.C.] 9701)

1952

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C.

1996)

1978

Antiquities Act (Public Law [P.L.] 59-209; 34 Stat. 225;

16 U.S.C. 431-433)

1906

Archeological Resources Protection Act (P.L. 96-95; 93

Stat. 721; 16 U.S.C. 47Oaa et seq.) as amended (P.L.

100-555; P.L. 100-588)

1979

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.

469-469c-1, P.L. 86-523, 74 Stat. 220, 88 Stat. 174)

1974

Archeological and Paleontological Salvage for Federal

Highway Projects (23 U.S.C. 305; 72 Stat. 913 [1958],

74 Stat. 525 [1960])

1960

Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat.

250)

1940

Carlson-Foley Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 1241-1243) 1968

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401–7626, P.L. 159), as

amended (P.L. 108–201)

1970

Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583, 16 U.S.C.

1451-1456)

1972

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601)

1980

Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3226 2001

Desert Land Act (19 Stat. 377; 43 U.S.C. 321-323), as

amended

1877

Domestic Minerals Program Extension Act 1953

Economy Act 1932 (P.L. 72-211; 47 Stat. 417; 31 U.S.C.

686), as amended

1932

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

(42 U.S.C. 11001-11050)

1986

Emergency Wetland Resources Act 1986

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.

884), as amended

1973

Energy Independence and Security Act 2007

Energy Policy Act (P.L. 109–58) 2005

Executive Order 11514 – Protection and Enhancement

of Environmental Quality

1970

Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of

the Cultural Environment

1971

Executive Order 11644 – Use of Off-Road Vehicles on

the Public Lands

1972

Executive Order 11738 – Providing for administration of

the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act with respects to federal contracts, grants, or loans

1973

Executive Order 11987 – Exotic organisms 1977

February 2013

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations,

Policies, Guidance, and Other Applicable

Mandates and Authority
1428 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Federal Law or Statute Year

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management 1977

Executive Order 11989 – Off-Road Vehicles on Public

Lands

1977

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands 1977

Executive Order 11991 – Relating to protection and

Enhancement of Environmental Quality

1977

Executive Order 12088 – Federal Compliance with

Applicable Pollution Control

1978

Executive Order 12580 – Superfund Implementation and

13016 – Amendment to Executive Orders 12580

1987, 1996

Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites 1996

Executive Order 13084 – Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments

1998

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species 1999

Executive Order 13148 – Greening of the Government

through Leadership in Environmental Management

2000

Executive Order 13195 – Trails for America in the 21st

Century

2001

Executive Order 13212 – Actions to Expedite

Energy-Related Projects

2003

Executive Order 13287 – Preserve America 2003

Executive Order Public Water Reserve 107 1926

Executive Order 10355 – Designating the Provisional

Intergovernmental Committee for the movement

of migrants from Europe as a public international

organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges,

exemptions, and immunities

1952

Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments

2000

Executive Order 6910 and Executive Order 6964, and

amendments

1934

Federal Aid Highway Act (23 U.S.C. 107[d] and 317) 1958

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C.

4301-4309)

1988

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act (90 Stat.

1083-1092), as amended

1976

Federal Coal Management Program Coal Screening

Process (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 3420.1-4)

1997

Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992 1992

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 1976

Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act 2004

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (43 U.S.C.

2301, et seq.)

2000

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7

U.S.C. 2801 et seq.)

1974

Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act 1982

Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa et seq.) 1957

Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 1949

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.

1251-1376), as amended

1948

Federal Water Projects Recreation Act 916 U.S.C

460[L][12]-460[L][21]), as amended

1965

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C.

661-667e), as amended

1934

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies,

Guidance, and Other Applicable Mandates and

Authority February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1429

Federal Law or Statute Year

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 U.S.C.

2901-2911)

1980

Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801-3862) 1985

General Allotment Act, Section 4 (25 U.S.C. 334), as

amended

1887

General Mining Law of 1872, as amended 1872

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (P.L. 108-148) 2003

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.) 1935

Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42), as amended 1988

Land & Water Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4601-4), as

amended

1965

Lode Law Act of 1866 (14 Statute 251) 1866

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C.

715-715r)

1929

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) 1918

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C.

181 et seq.)

1920

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as

amended (30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.)

1947

Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 181

et seq.)

1970

Mining Claim Rights Restoration Act (30 U.S.C.

621-625)

1955

National Environmental Policy Act 1969

National Fire Plan 2000

National Historic Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.

1241-1249), as amended

1968

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.

470)

1966

National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and

Development Act of 1980 (P. L. 96-479, 94 Stat. 2305)

1980

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300)

1998

National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.

1242 and 1243)

1978

National Trails System Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1241 et

seq.), as amended

1968

National Wild & Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et

seq.)

1968

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.)

1990

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (P.L.

106-247)

2000

Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and

Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.), as amended

1990

Noxious Weed Control Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-412) 2004

O&C Lands Act of 1937 (62 Stat. 162) 1948

Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et

seq.)

1970

Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) 1990

Omnibus Public Land Management Act (P.L. 111-11) 2009

Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772) 2000

Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C 13101) 1990

Public Range Improvement Act (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) 1978

February 2013

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations,

Policies, Guidance, and Other Applicable

Mandates and Authority
1430 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Federal Law or Statute Year

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C.

1901 et seq.)

1978

The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U.S.C. 869),

as amended in 1988

1926

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 U.S.C. Section 402) 1946

Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 469), as

amended by Archeological and Historic Preservation

Act of 1974

1960

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

(42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), as amended, and the Bevill

Amendment (Section 3001[b][3][A][ii] and 40 CFR

261.4[b][7])

1976

Riparian-Wetlands Initiative for the 1990s, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

January 22, 1992

1992

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (10 U.S.C. 1899, Section

10)

1899

Safe Drinking Water Act (L. 95-190; 42 U.S.C. 201, 300

et seq.), as amended

1977

San Juan Basin Wilderness Protection Act of 1984 (16

U.S.C. § 1132)

1984

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.

470)

1966

Sikes Act of 1974, as amended (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) 1974

Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16

U.S.C. 2001 et seq.)

1977

Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935

(16 U.S.C. 590), as amended

1935

Soil Information Assistance for Community Planning and

Resource Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3271)

1966

Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916 (43 U.S.C. 299),

as amended

1916

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (30 U.S.C.

1201 et seq.)

1977

Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C. 611-614) 1955

The Airport and Airway Improvement Act, Section 516

(49 U.S.C. 2215)

1982

The Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C.

7101 et seq.)

1977

The Engle Act (43 U.S.C. 155 et seq.) 1958

The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et

seq.), as amended

1970

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (43 U.S.C. 460

et seq.)

1965

The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 1970

The Multiple Mineral Development Act (30 U.S.C.

521-531 et seq.)

1954

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131), as

amended

1964

Toxic Substance and Control Act of 1976 (P.L. 104-66),

as amended in 1995

1976

Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to

Federal Land and Resource Management

2000

U.S. Onshore Orders

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies,

Guidance, and Other Applicable Mandates and

Authority February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1431

Federal Law or Statute Year

Onshore Order No. 1 – Approval of

Operations on Onshore Federal and

Indian Oil and Gas Leases

1983

Onshore Order No. 2 – Onshore Oil

and Gas Drilling Operations on Federal

and Indian Oil and Gas Leases

1988

Onshore Order No. 3 – Site Security on

Federal Oil and Gas Leases

1989

Onshore Order No. 4 – Measurement

of Oil on Federal Oil and Gas Leases

1989

Onshore Order No. 5 – Measurement

of Gas on Federal Oil and Gas Leases

1989

Onshore Order No. 6 – Hydrogen

Sulfide Operations on Federal Oil and

Gas Leases

1991

Onshore Order No. 7 – Disposal of

Produced Water from Federal Oil and

Gas Leases

1993

Water Quality Act of 1987, as amended from the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 (Clean Water Act)

(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended

1987

Water Resources Development Act 1974

Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C.

1962a-1962[a][4][e]), as amended

1965

Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Act (16

U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended

1954

Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements

(“Wyden Amendment”) (P.L.-104-208, Sec. 124, P.L.

10-5-277, Sec. 136 of the 1999 Interior Appropriations

Act of 1998)

1998

Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act (P.L.

92-195)

1971

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) 1968

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy 2001

U.S. V. Peck, No. 97-8122, 1999 WL 33022 1999

Placer Law – Act of July 9, 1870 (16 Stat. 217) 1870

Carey Act of August 18, 1894 (43 U.S.C. 641 et seq.),

as amended

1894

Earl Douglass, 44 L.D. 325, August 6, 1915 1915

Act of April 23, 1932; 47 Stat. 136 1932

The Act of June 28, 1934; Section 7 (43 U.S.C. 315f),

as amended

1934

The Materials Act of July 31, 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601-604),

as amended

1947

Acquired Lands Act – Act of August 7, 1947; 61 Stat. 913 1947

Act of September 1, 1949, Section 3 (30 U.S.C. 192c) 1949

Act of June 30, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 508[C] and [e]) 1950

Act of August 13, 1954 (68 Stat. 708, 30 U.S.C. 521

subpart)

1954

Multiple Mineral Development Act of August 13, 1954

(30 U.S.C. 521-531 et seq.)

1954

Act of July 23, 1955 (P.L. 167; 43 CFR 3710) 1955

Act of September 28, 1962 (P.L. 87-713, 76 Stat. 652) 1962

Classification and Multiple Use Act of September 19,

1964 (78 Stat. 986, 43 U.S.C. 1411-18)

1964

February 2013

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations,

Policies, Guidance, and Other Applicable

Mandates and Authority
1432 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Federal Law or Statute Year

Act of October 30, 1978 (92 Stat. 2073-2075) 1978

Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (43 CFR

2361.1[f])

1976

Table A.2. Bureau of Land Management Regulations and Policies

Bureau of Land Management Directive Year

Abandoned Mine Lands National Strategic Plan 2006

Applications for Permit to Drill Fees 2007

Applications for Permits to Drill 2007

Best Management Practices – “The Gold Book” 2007

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 3809 Manual (1985,

revised 2001)

2001

BLM Handbook (Draft) H-2101-5 – Environmental Site

Assessments for Disposal of Real Property

2004

BLM Handbook 2200-1, Land Exchange Handbook 2005

BLM Handbook 3809 (Draft 2006) 2006

BLM Handbook H-1112-2, Safety and Health for Field

Operations Manual

1998

BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning 2005

BLM Handbook H-1703-1, Response Actions

NCP/Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

2001

BLM Handbook H-1742-1, Burned Area Emergency

Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook

2007

BLM Handbook H-1745-1, Native Plant Materials

Handbook

2001

BLM Handbook H-1790-1, National Environmental

Policy Act

2008

BLM Handbook H-2101-4, Pre-Acquisition

Environmental Site Assessments

2000

BLM Handbook H-3510-1, Phosphate Leasing Handbook 1989

BLM Handbook H-3042-1, Solid Minerals Reclamation

Handbook

1992

BLM Handbook H-3720-1, Abandoned Mine Land

Program Policy

2007

BLM Handbook H-3809-1, for Mineral Examiners, v.

3-332, Sept. 11, 2007

2007

BLM Handbook H-3809-3, Validity Mineral Reports,

June 1969

1969

BLM Handbook H-4180-1, Rangeland Health Standards 2001

BLM Handbook H-4700-1, Wild Horses and Burros

Management Handbook

2010

BLM Handbook H-8160-1, General Procedural Guidance

for Native American Consultation

1994

BLM Handbook H-8270-1, General Procedural Guidance

for Paleontological Resource Management

1998

BLM Handbook H-8342, Travel and Transportation

Handbook

2012

BLM Handbook H-8550-1, Interim Management Policy

for Lands Under Wilderness Review

1987

BLM Handbook H-9214-1, Prescribed Fire Management

Handbook

1998

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies,

Guidance, and Other Applicable Mandates and

Authority February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1433

Bureau of Land Management Directive Year

BLM Information Bulletin No. Washington Office

(WO)-2002-101, Cultural Resource Considerations in

Resource Management Plans

2002

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-009, Potential

Fossil Yield Classification System for Paleontological

Resources on Public Lands

2007

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WO-2003-147,

Application for Permit to Drill – Process Improvement

#3 – Cultural Resources

2003

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WO-2005-003,

Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation for Fluid

Minerals Leasing

2005

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WO-2005-227,

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 and Oil

and Gas Permitting

2005

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WO-99-039,

Issuance of Grazing Permits in Compliance with

Applicable Laws, Regulations and Policy

1999

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WY-97-111, Report

of Conformance of BLM Land Use Plans with the

Standards & Guidelines on the Public Lands; Follow-up

Maintenance of Land Use Plans

1997

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WY-98-061,

Guidance for Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring

for the Implementation of Standard Number five of

the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing

1998

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WY-99-20,

Complying with Section 106 in Conformance with

WOIM No. 99-039

1999

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WO-2003-147,

Application for Permit to Drill – Process Improvement

#3 – Cultural Resources

2003

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WO-2005-003,

Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation for Fluid

Minerals Leasing

2005

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WO-2005-227,

National Historic Policy Act Section 106 and Oil and

Gas Permitting

2005

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WO-99-039,

Issuance of Grazing Permits in Compliance with

Applicable Laws, Regulations and Policy

1999

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2005-046,

Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices

for the Management of Potential Gray Wolf Habitat

2005

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2005-058,

Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices

for the Management of Potential Canada Lynx Habitat

2005

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2006-037,

Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices

for the Management of Potential Black-footed Ferret

Habitat

2006

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2006-049,

Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices

for the Management of Grizzly Bear Habitat

2006

February 2013

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations,

Policies, Guidance, and Other Applicable

Mandates and Authority
1434 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Bureau of Land Management Directive Year

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2006-197,

BLM Energy and Non-Energy Mineral Policy

2006

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2007-018,

Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices

for the Management of Mountain Plover Habitat

2007

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2010-013, Oil

and Gas Leasing Screen for Greater Sage-Grouse

2010

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2010-012,

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Policy

on Wyoming Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Administered Public Lands including the Federal Mineral

Estate

2009

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2012-019,

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Policy on

Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Administered

Public Lands including the Federal Mineral Estate

2012

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 1999-076, Policy on

the Use of Certified Weed-Free Hay, Straw, and Mulch

on BLM Lands

1999

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-164, Guidance

to Address Environmental Justice in Land Use Plans

2002

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-073,

Weed-Free Seed Use on Lands Administered by the

Bureau of Land Management

2006

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2007-097, Solar

Energy Development Policy

2007

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-011,

Assessment and Mitigation of Potential Impacts to

Paleontological Resources

2008

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-018, Process

for Setting Priorities for Issuing Grazing Permits and

Leases

2008

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-043, Guidance

for Wind-energy Development on BLM Land

2009

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-215, Planning

for Special Designations within the National System of

Public Lands.

2009

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-088, Guidance

on 43 CFR 3809.100 and its Application

2010

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-117, Oil and

Gas Leasing Reform — Land Use Planning and Lease

Parcel Reviews

2010

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-003, Solar

Energy Development Policy

2010

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-004,

Transmittal of Revised Recreation and Visitor Services

Land Use Planning Guidance

2010

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-043,

Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and

Procedures

2011

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044, BLM

National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning

Strategy

2011

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies,

Guidance, and Other Applicable Mandates and

Authority February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1435

Bureau of Land Management Directive Year

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-154,

Requirement to Conduct and Maintain Inventory

Information for Wilderness Characteristics and to

Consider Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in Land

Use Plans

2011

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-067,

Clarification of Cultural Resource Considerations

for Off-Highway Vehicle Designations and Travel

Management

2012

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-141,

Confidentiality of Paleontological Locality Information

Under the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009

2012

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-140, Collecting

Paleontological Resources Under the Paleontological

Resources Preservation Act of 2009

2012

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-169, Resource

Management Plan Alternative Development for Livestock

Grazing

2012

BLM Manual 1601, Land Use Planning 2000

BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern

1988

BLM Manual 1626, Travel and Transportation Manual 2012

BLM Manual 1737, Riparian Habitat 1992

BLM Manual 1740, Renewable Resource Improvements

and Treatments

2008

BLM Manual 2800, Cadastral Surveys-General 1985

BLM Manual 2880, Mineral Leasing Act Rights-of-Way,

Glossary of Terms

2012

BLM Manual 3031, Energy and Mineral Resource

Assessment

1985

BLM Manual 3060, Mineral Reports – Preparation and

Review, April 7, 1994

1994

BLM Manual 4180, Land Health 2001

BLM Manual 4700, Wild Free-Roaming Horses and

Burros Management

2010

BLM Manual 6250, National Scenic and Historic Trail

Administration

2012

BLM Manual 6280, Management of National Scenic and

Historic Trails and Trails Under Study or Recommended

as Suitable for Congressional Designation

2012

BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study

Areas

2012

BLM Manual 6500, Manual of Wildlife, Fish and Plant

Resources

2002

BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management 1988

BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Policy 2008

BLM Manual 8100, Cultural Resource Management 2004

BLM Manual 8110, Identifying Cultural Resources 2004

BLM Manual 8120, Tribal Consultation Under Cultural

Resources

2004

BLM Manual 8130, Planning for Uses of Cultural

Resources

2004

BLM Manual 8140, Protecting Cultural Resources 2004

BLM Manual 8160, Native American Consultation and

Coordination

1990

February 2013

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations,

Policies, Guidance, and Other Applicable

Mandates and Authority
1436 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Bureau of Land Management Directive Year

BLM Manual 8270, Paleontological Resource

Management

1998

BLM Manual 8340, Off-Road Vehicles 1982

BLM Manual 8341, Conditions of Use (Off- Road

Vehicles)

1979

BLM Manual 8342, Designation of Roads and Trails 1988

BLM Manual 8343, Vehicle Operations 1979

BLM Manual 8344, Permits 1979

BLM Manual 8351, Wild and Scenic Rivers 1992

BLM Manual 8400, Visual Resource Management 1980

BLM Manual 9113, Roads Manual 2011

BLM Manual Section 1703, Hazardous Materials

Management

2007

BLM Manual Section 7240, Water Quality 1978

BLM Manual Section 7250, Water Rights 1984

BLM Policy Statement on Riparian Area Management 1987

BLM TR 1734-6 Version 4: Interpreting Indicators of

Rangeland Health

2005

BLM TR 1737 series: Riparian Area Management

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Lotic and

Lentic Areas

1998

BLM Wyoming Riparian Management Activity Guide 1991

BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List 2002

Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 165

IBLA 231

2005

BLM Grazing Administration Range Improvements and

Water Rights (43 CFR 4100 et seq.)

2002 (revised)

Cave Management (43 CFR 37.4[c] and 37.11[c][3][iii]) 1988

Competitive Leasing (43 CFR 3120) 2002

Delegation of Authority, Cooperative Agreements &

Contracts for Oil & Gas Inspection (43 CFR 3190)

1987

Federal Coal Management Program Regulations (43 CFR

Group 3400)

1979

Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating

Jurisdictional Wetlands

1991

Fish and Wildlife 2000 BLM National, State and District

policies

2000

Geothermal Resource Leasing (43 CFR 3200) 1998

Geothermal Resources Unit Agreements (43 CFR 3280) 1973

Instruction Memorandum 2002-196 2002

Instruction Memorandum 2003-020, Interim Wind

Energy Development Policy

2003

Instruction Memorandum 2005-069, Offsite

Compensatory Mitigation Guidelines

2005

Instruction Memorandum 2005-176, Filing of Protests on

lands Included in Oil and Gas Lease Sales

2005

Instruction Memorandum 2005-210, Energy Policy and

Conservation Act Inventory – Data Compilation for

Phases III and IV

2005

Instruction Memorandum 2005-247, National

Environmental Policy Act Compliance for Oil, Gas, and

Geothermal Development

2005

Instruction Memorandum 2006-071, Process

Improvement for Oil, Gas, Geothermal, Geophysical, and

Related Rights-of-Way Approvals

2006

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies,

Guidance, and Other Applicable Mandates and

Authority February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1437

Bureau of Land Management Directive Year

Instruction Memorandum 2006-197, BLM Energy and

Non-Energy Mineral Policy

2006

Instruction Memorandum 2006-206, Oil and Gas Bond

Adequacy Reviews

2006

Instruction Memorandum 2006-145, Cooperative

Conservation Based Strategic Plan for the Abandoned

Mine Lands Program

2006

Instruction Memorandum 2007-096, Refinement of the

Methodology to Identify Abandoned Mine Land Sites

Near Populated Places and High Use Areas

2007

BLM Instruction Memorandum 2009-011, Assessment

and Mitigation of Potential Impacts to Paleontological

Resources

2008

Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2003-011 2002

Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2006-009 2006

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (43 CFR From 3100-11

[July 2006], 43 CFR Part 3160)

1920

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (43 CFR 2006

3425.1–7[a][2][iv, v])

1920

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (43 CFR 2006

3461.5[h][2][i])

1920

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and others (43 CFR 2006

3591.1[b][10])

1920

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and others (43 CFR 2006

3430.4-4[a][10]; 43 CFR 2006 3430.4-4[b][8])

1920

Minerals Management, Generally (43 CFR 3000) 1983

National Contingency Plan Regulations (40 CFR 300) 1994

National Management Strategy for Motorized

Off-Highway Vehicle Use on BLM Public Lands

2001

National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating

and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties

1990

National Register of Historic Places Eligibility (36 CFR

Part 60.4)

1966

Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations (43

CFR Part 11)

1986

Noncompetitive Leasing (43 CFR 3110) 1988

Off-Road Vehicle Implementation Strategy Washakie

Resource Area

1994

Oil and Gas Leasing (43 CFR 3100) 1983

Onshore Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration (43 CFR

3150)

1988

Onshore Oil and Gas Operations (43 CFR 3160) 1982

Onshore Oil and Gas Unit Agreements; Unproven Areas

(43 CFR 3180)

1983

Permits for Recreation on Public Lands (43 CFR 2930) 2004

Riparian-Wetlands Initiative for the 1990s, the U.S.

Department of the Interior, BLM 1992

Solicitor’s Opinion of January 17, 1986 1986

Solicitor’s Opinion of July 10, 1963 1963

Solicitor’s Opinion of October 12, 1956 1956

Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for

Livestock Grazing Management for the Public Lands

Administered by the BLM in the State of Wyoming

2004

Standards for Healthy Rangelands, Standard #2 1997

February 2013

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations,

Policies, Guidance, and Other Applicable

Mandates and Authority
1438 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Bureau of Land Management Directive Year

The Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidance for

Livestock Grazing Management (43 CFR 4180)

1997

WO – Instruction Memorandum – 2002-034, Recent

Changes in Management Direction: Federal Wildland

Fire Management Policy, National Fire Plan

2002

WY Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-034, Travel

Management Guidelines for the Public Lands in Wyoming

2005

WY Instruction Memorandum No. 89-402, April 3,

1989, Inspection and Enforcement Program for Locatable

Minerals Activities

1989

WY-2001-040, Issuance of BLM (Wyoming) Sensitive

Species Policy and List (Expires 9/30/02)

2001

Wyoming BLM Coal/Coal Bed Methane Policy 2000

Wyoming BLM Soil Program Ten Year Strategy 2003

Wyoming Instructional Memorandum 87-672, August

26, 1987

1987

Table A.3. Applicable Wyoming State Laws and Regulations

Wyoming State Laws and Regulations

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office Statutes, Rules and Regulations

State of Wyoming Occupational Health and Safety Rules and Regulations

State of Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Rules and Regulations

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Rules and Regulations

State of Wyoming Occupational Health and Safety Rules and Regulations

State of Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Rules and Regulations

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Rules and Regulations

Wyoming Environmental Quality Act

State of Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations

Wyoming Executive Department, Office of the Governor, Executive Order 2011–5. Greater Sage-grouse Core

Area Protection

Table A.4. Memoranda and Agreements

Memoranda and Agreements Year Description

Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies, U.S. Forest Service

(USFS), Bureau of Land Management

(BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

2006

Policies and guidelines for fish and

wildlife management in National

Forest and BLM Wilderness.

Yellowstone River Compact 1950

Between the states of Wyoming,

Montana, and North Dakota was

agreed upon to create an equitable

division and apportionment of such

waters; this compact ultimately

controls the future and current uses of

surface water resources in the basin.

Ongoing litigation between Wyoming

and Montana over the inclusion of

groundwater in this compact is yet to

be resolved.

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies,

Guidance, and Other Applicable Mandates and

Authority February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1439

Memoranda and Agreements

Year Description

Memorandum of Understanding No.

WY 19

2003

Between the U.S. Department

of the Interior (DOI), BLM, and

theWyoming Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ)-Land

Quality Division (LQD) and

addresses Management Of Surface

Mining and Exploration for Locatable

Minerals on Public Lands. It was

signed November11, 2003. This

isa Supplemental Memorandum to

the General Statewide Memorandum

of Understanding (Memorandum of

Understanding) dated October 1975,

between the Governor ofWyoming

and the United States, by and through

the State Director, BLM, DOI.

Wyoming DEQN/A

There are currently no agreements

between BLM and the State of Wyoming DEQ-LQD regarding

exploration for or development

of non-energy leasable minerals.

Wyoming DEQ-LQD processes

applications for these minerals

under their “Non-Coal” rules and

regulations. It is possible that the

same Memorandum of Understanding

between BLM andWyoming

DEQ-LQD for locatable minerals

would have some valuable application

should these two agencies need to

work together to process applications

related to non-energy leasable

minerals.

Clean and Diversified Energy

Initiative

2005

Recommends initiatives to facilitate

the timely leasing and permitting of

geothermal resources.

BLM Memorandum of Understanding

WO300-2006-08, April 2006

2006

Facilitate interagency coordination

and establish policies and procedures

to implement Section 225 of the

Energy Policy Act of 2005.

National Memorandum of

Understanding between the BLM and

the Department of Defense

—

This Memorandum of Understanding

outlines procedures for processing

Notices of Intent (NOIs) to conduct

geophysical operations when Air

Force, Army, and Navy lands are

involved. The Department of Defense

will be the lead agency when their

lands are involved in an NOI.

Interagency between BLM and

Bureau of Reclamation Agreement

—

The BLM has jurisdiction over NOIs

to conduct geophysical exploration

which involve Bureau of Reclamation

Agreement lands. The Bureau of

Reclamation Agreement will be

contacted for their conditions of

approval.

February 2013

AppendixA Federal Laws, Regulations,

Policies, Guidance, and Other Applicable

Mandates and Authority
1440 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Memoranda and Agreements

Year Description

Memorandum of Understanding

between BLM and State of Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation

Commission

—

Outlines the handling of NOIs to

conduct geophysical exploration

and sharing of information and

compliance inspections. The State of Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation

Commission has jurisdiction over

injection wells and spacing.

Memorandum of Agreement, between

theWyoming DEQ and the State of

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation

Commission

1999

Wyoming DEQ delegated permitting

of road applications for oilfield wastes

when the wastes are to be applied

on the lease, unit, or communitized

area.Wyoming DEQ still has the

jurisdiction for permitting road

application of oil field wastes outside

of the lease, unit, or communitized

area.

Interagency Agreement between the

USFS and the BLM 2006

Establishes procedures for the

administration of oil and gas

operations on federal leases within

the National Forest System.

Memorandum of Understanding

BLM/Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service-Wildlife Services

2003

Detailing cooperative efforts between

the two groups on suppression

of grasshoppers and Mormon

crickets on BLM lands (Document

#03-8100-0870-MU, February 27,

2003) and local Natural Resources

Conservation Service.

Western Association of

Fish andWildlife Agencies

/USFS/BLM/USFWS Memorandum

of Understanding (08-31-2000)

2000

Involving the management of sage

grouse and their habitat.

Memorandum of Understanding

between the BLM and the Department

of Agriculture (60F26045-48)

1995

Predator control protocols were

formalized in this Interagency

Memorandum of Understanding.

Cooperative Agreements withWeed

and Pest Districts: Bighorn County,

Hot Springs County, Park County, Washakie County

—

Details cooperative effortsfor noxious

weed control on BLM-administered

lands by the county weed and pest

districts.

Programmatic Agreement Among

BLM, the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation, and the

National Conference of State Historic

Preservation Offices (SHPO)

1997

Regarding the manner in which BLM

will meet its responsibilities under the

National Historic Preservation Act.

State Protocol Agreement Between

theWyoming BLM State Director and

theWyoming SHPO

2006

Regarding the manner in which

the BLM will coordinate with the Wyoming SHPO.

Memorandum of Agreement WY-7

—

Memorandum of Agreement

between the BLM and theWyoming

Recreation Commission; addresses

land classifications and withdrawals

to protect public lands generally, and

specifically to protect historic trails.

Memorandum of Agreement WY-19

—

Memorandum of Agreement between

the BLM and theWyoming Governor,

addresses overall cooperation in

public and state land management

efforts.

AppendixA Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies,

Guidance, and Other Applicable Mandates and

Authority February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1441

Memoranda and Agreements

Year Description

Memorandum of Agreement WY-20

—

Memorandum of Agreement between

the BLM and theWyoming Game and

Fish Commission, addressesa myriad

of land and resource management

issues, including classifications, land

acquisition and disposal, and access.

Memorandum of Agreement WY-21

—

Memorandum of Agreement between

the BLM and Region II and Region

IV of the USFS, addresses overall

coordination ona myriad of land and

resource management issues.

Memorandum of Agreement WY-63

—

Memorandum of Agreement among

the BLM, the USFS,Wyoming

Department of Public Lands and

theWyoming Game and Fish

Commission, addresses public land

access and management of access

problems.

Memorandum of Agreement WY-65

—

Memorandum of Agreement between

the BLM and the Agricultural

Stabilization and Conservation

Service (ASCS), addresses overall

coordination ona myriad of land and

resource management issues.

Memorandum of Agreement WY-77

—

Memorandum of Agreement among

the BLM, the ASCS, USFS, AES,

andWyoming State Conservation

Commission, addresses overall

coordination on conservation

planning projects.

Memorandum of Agreement WY-117

—

Memorandum of Agreement among

the BLM and theWyoming Board of

Land Commissioners, theWyoming

SHPO and the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation, addresses

cultural resource protection in state

exchanges.

Memorandum of Agreement WY-118

—

Memorandum of Agreement between

the BLM and theWyoming Board

of Land Commissioners, addresses

processing state exchanges.

Memorandum of Agreement WY-119

—

Memorandum of Agreement between

the BLM and the ASCS, addresses

management of agricultural trespass.

Memorandum of Agreement WY-121

—

Memorandum of Agreement between

the BLM and the National Park

Service, addresses management of the

Oregon National HistoricTrails.

Memorandum of Agreement WY-122

—

Memorandum of Agreement

among the BLM and the USFS, Wyoming Department of Public

Lands,Wyoming Game and Fish

Commission,Wyoming Recreation

Commission,Wyoming Department

of Agriculture, and theWyoming

State Planning Coordinator’s Office,

addresses access to public land.

February 2013

AppendixA Federal Laws, Regulations,

Policies, Guidance, and Other Applicable

Mandates and Authority
1442 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Memoranda and Agreements Year Description

Memorandum of Agreement WY-131 —

Memorandum of Agreement between

the BLM and the Wyoming Game and

Fish Department (WGFD), addresses

overall coordination on land and

resource management.

Memorandum of Agreement

WY930-91-06-38 —

Memorandum of Agreement between

the BLM and the Wyoming Board

of Land Commissioners, addresses

exchange pooling.

Memorandum of Agreement

WY930-91-06-39 —

Memorandum of Agreement between

the BLM and the Wyoming Board

of Land Commissioners, addresses

exchange of state land in holdings in

wilderness areas.

Memorandum of Understanding

WY920-08-07-192

2007

Memorandum of Understanding

WY920-08-07-192 between

BLM, the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), and

the Wyoming Department of

Transportation, addresses each

agency’s responsibilities in regard

to processing Federal-aid highway

appropriations. To implement

Sections 107(d) and 317 of the

Federal Aid Highway Act (23

U.S.C. 107[d] and 317), as amended,

the agencies operate under this

Memorandum of Understanding

(updated in August 2007). All

appropriations under the Federal

Aid Highway Act are required to

be consistent with the referenced

Memorandum of Understanding.

Memorandum of Understanding

WY920-02-09-108

2002

Between the BLM, the FHWA,

and the Wyoming Department of

Transportation that defines each

agency’s responsibilities in regard

to processing federal-aid highway

appropriations.

Grass Creek Travel Management Area —

BLM, Wyoming State Board of Land

Commissioners, WGFD, LU Sheep

Company, Travel Management in

Grass Creek area.

Renner, Carter Billy Miles Tensleep

Public Access Area — BLM, WGFD – Public access.

Medicine Lodge Habitat Management

Unit Areas — BLM, WGFD – Public Access.

Double H Ranch Access Area — BLM, Double H Ranch, WG&F –

Public Access.

Nowater OHV Trail System —

BLM, Wyoming State Trails Program,

Worland Chamber of Commerce, Ten

Sleep Chamber of Commerce.

Cooperative Management Agreement

between BLM, Worland District, LU

Sheep Company, WGFD, Wyoming

State Board of Land Commissioners

1989

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies,

Guidance, and Other Applicable Mandates and

Authority February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1443

Memoranda and Agreements Year Description

Public Access Area Agreements

Between BLM and WGFD —

Public access area agreements

to numerous BLM parcels on

South Fork, Shoshone, North Fork

Shoshone, Clarks Fork of the

Yellowstone River, and Luce and

Hogan Reservoirs.

Cooperative Management Agreement

between BLM, Worland District,

WGFD, Wyoming State Board of

Land Commissioners, Double-H

Ranch

June 1994

Assistance agreement KAA990028 –

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation

Agreement

—

The Abandoned Mine Land program

in Wyoming currently operates

pursuant to this assistance agreement

between the Wyoming State Office

of the BLM and the Wyoming DEQ.

It provides for the cooperative effort

between the two agencies for a

long term relationship to efficiently

and economically plan for, and

share responsibilities of, effective

abandoned mine land reclamation on

public lands in Wyoming.

March 1990, an Umbrella

Memorandum of Understanding

between the WGFD and BLM

Wyoming for Management of the Fish

and Wildlife Resources on the Public

Lands was signed (No Number)

1990

The purpose of the Memorandum

of Understanding is to strengthen

the cooperative approach to the

management of wildlife and wildlife

habitat on public land between the

two agencies and to encourage them

to work together to develop, enhance,

maintain, and manage wildlife

resources, including planning and

sharing data concerning biological

resources.

The Paleontological Resources

Preservation Act

2009

Recently signed legislation

supplements existing laws and

guidance regarding paleontological

resources on BLM lands (e.g.,

Federal Land Policy and Management

Act, BLM Manual 8270, and

BLM Handbook H-8270-1).

The Paleontological Resources

Preservation Act became law on

March 30, 2009, as part of the

Omnibus Public Lands Management

Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-011).

The BLM has followed up with

Instruction Memoranda that reinforce

policies regarding confidentiality

and paleontological collecting in

light of the new law (Instruction

Memorandum dated June 11,

2012, “Collecting Paleontological

Resources Under the Paleontological

Resources Preservation Act of 2009”

and Instruction Memorandum dated

June 11, 2012, “Confidentiality of

February 2013

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations,

Policies, Guidance, and Other Applicable

Mandates and Authority
1444 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Memoranda and Agreements Year Description

Paleontological Locality Information

under the Omnibus Public Lands Act

of 2009”).

Omnibus Public Lands Management

Act

2009

Recently signed legislation

supplements existing laws and

guidance regarding paleontological

resources on BLM lands (e.g.,

Federal Land Policy and Management

Act, BLM Manual 8270, and

BLM Handbook H-8270-1).

The Paleontological Resources

Preservation Act became law on

March 30, 2009, as part of the

Omnibus Public Lands Management

Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-011).

The BLM has followed up with

Instruction Memoranda that reinforce

policies regarding confidentiality

and paleontological collecting in

light of the new law (Instruction

Memorandum dated June 11,

2012, “Collecting Paleontological

Resources Under the Paleontological

Resources Preservation Act of 2009”

and Instruction Memorandum dated

June 11, 2012, “Confidentiality of

Paleontological Locality Information

under the Omnibus Public Lands Act

of 2009”).

The Taylor Grazing Act 1934

The principle legislation used

to administer livestock grazing

on public lands until 1976 when

Congress passed the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act.

Appendix A Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies,

Guidance, and Other Applicable Mandates and

Authority February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1445

Appendix B. Maps

Maps are included in electronic format. In hardcopy documents, maps can be found on a compact

disk (CD) attached to the inside back cover of Volume 2.

The maps provided with this document are for illustrative purposes only and might not accurately

reflect all decisions due to the size of the resource area; details can be obscured or not readily

apparent, or the size may appear larger on the maps so that the feature stands out when depicted

on such a broad scale. The management actions that make up the Lander Proposed Resource

Management Plan (RMP) are in all cases the decision and not modified by the manner in which

the decision is displayed on the maps.

Map 1. Surface Ownership in the Planning Area

Map 2. Federal Mineral Estate in the Planning Area

Map 3. Dubois Area and General Location Names

Map 4. Physical Resources - Major River Basins

Map 5. Physical Resources - Riparian Areas

Map 6. Physical Resources - Class I Waters

Map 7. Physical Resources - Wind Erosion Potential

Map 8. Physical Resources - Water Erosion Potential

Map 9. Physical Resources - Annual Precipitation

Map 10. Physical Resources - Surface Slope

Map 11. Physical Resources - Soils with Limited Reclamation Potential

Map 12. Physical Resources - Citizen Proposed Wilderness

Map 13. Physical Resources - Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (Alternative

B)

Map 14. Physical Resources - Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (Alternative

D)

Map 15. Mineral Resources - Uranium Mining Projects and Districts

February 2013 Appendix B Maps
1446 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Map 16. Mineral Resources - Geothermal Development Potential

Map 17. Mineral Resources - Conventional Oil and Gas Development Potential

Map 18. Mineral Resources - Salable - Mineral Materials Sand and Gravel Occurrence

Potential

Map 19. Mineral Resources - Phosphate Leasing Potential

Map 20. Mineral Resources - Coalbed Natural Gas Development Potential

Map 21. Mineral Resources - Locatable Mineral Withdrawals (Alternative A)

Map 22. Mineral Resources - Locatable Mineral Withdrawals (Alternative B)

Map 23. Mineral Resources - Locatable Mineral Withdrawals (Alternative C)

Map 24. Mineral Resources - Locatable Mineral Withdrawals (Alternative D)

Map 25. Mineral Resources - Geothermal Energy Constraints (Alternative A)

Map 26. Mineral Resources - Geothermal Energy Constraints (Alternative B)

Map 27. Mineral Resources - Geothermal Energy Constraints (Alternative C)

Map 28. Mineral Resources - Geothermal Energy Constraints (Alternative D)

Map 29. Mineral Resources - Oil and Gas Constraints (Alternative A)

Map 30. Mineral Resources - Oil and Gas Constraints (Alternative B)

Map 31. Mineral Resources - Oil and Gas Constraints (Alternative C)

Map 32. Mineral Resources - Oil and Gas Constraints (Alternative D)

Map 33. Mineral Resources - Oil and Gas Fields and Leases

Map 34. Mineral Resources - Salable - Mineral Materials Disposal (Alternative A)

Map 35. Mineral Resources - Salable - Mineral Materials Disposal (Alternative B)

Appendix B Maps February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1447

Map 36. Mineral Resources - Salable - Mineral Materials Disposal (Alternative C)

Map 37. Mineral Resources - Salable - Mineral Materials Disposal (Alternative D)

Map 38. Mineral Resources - Phosphate Leasing (Alternative A)

Map 39. Mineral Resources - Phosphate Leasing (Alternative B)

Map 40. Mineral Resources - Phosphate Leasing (Alternative C)

Map 41. Mineral Resources - Phosphate Leasing (Alternative D)

Map 42. Fire Management - Fire Regime Condition Classifications

Map 43. Fire Management - Fire Management Units

Map 44. Biological Resources - Precipitation Zones for U.S. Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service Ecological Site Descriptions

Map 45. Biological Resources - Vegetation Communities and Major Land Resource Areas

Map 46. Biological Resources - Invasive Plant Species

Map 47. Biological Resources - Primary Forest Resource Areas

Map 48. Biological Resources - Proper Functioning Condition Streams

Map 49. Biological Resources - Fish-bearing Streams

Map 50. Biological Resources - Bighorn Sheep Crucial Winter Range and Parturition Areas

Map 51. Biological Resources - Elk Winter Ranges and Parturition Areas

Map 52. Biological Resources - Moose Crucial Winter Range

Map 53. Biological Resources - Mule Deer Crucial Winter Range

Map 54. Biological Resources - Pronghorn Crucial Winter Range

Map 55. Biological Resources - Wyoming Game and Fish Department Bighorn Sheep Herd

Units

February 2013 Appendix B Maps
1448 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Map 56. Biological Resources - Wyoming Game and Fish Department Elk Herd Units

Map 57. Biological Resources - Wyoming Game and Fish Department Moose Herd Units

Map 58. Biological Resources - Wyoming Game and Fish Department Mule Deer Herd Units

Map 59. Biological Resources - Wyoming Game and Fish Department Pronghorn Herd Units

Map 60. Biological Resources - Big Game Migration Routes and Barriers

Map 61. Biological Resources - Wyoming Game and Fish Department White-tailed Deer

Herd Units

Map 62. Biological Resources - Known Raptor Nests

Map 63. Biological Resources - Special Status Species Greater Sage-Grouse (Alternatives

A and C)

Map 64. Biological Resources - Special Status Species Greater Sage-Grouse (Alternative B)

Map 65. Biological Resources - Special Status Species Greater Sage-Grouse (Alternative D)

Map 66. Biological Resources - Special Status Species Lynx Analysis Units

Map 67. Biological Resources - Special Status Species Desert Yellowhead Critical Habitat

Map 68. Biological Resources - Wild Horse Herd Management Areas

Map 69. Heritage and Visual Resources - Cultural Resources

Map 70. Heritage and Visual Resources - Potential Fossil Yield Classifications

Map 71. Heritage and Visual Resources - Visual Resource Inventory Distance Mapping

Zones

Map 72. Heritage and Visual Resources - Visual Resource Inventory Sensitivity

Map 73. Heritage and Visual Resources - Visual Resource Inventory Scenic Quality

Map 74. Heritage and Visual Resources - New (2009) Visual Resource Inventory Classes

Appendix B Maps February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1449

Map 75. Heritage and Visual Resources - Existing (1985) Visual Resource Management

Classes (Alternative A)

Map 76. Heritage and Visual Resources - Visual Resource Management Classes (Alternative

B)

Map 77. Heritage and Visual Resources - Visual Resource Management Classes (Alternative

C)

Map 78. Heritage and Visual Resources - Visual Resource Management Classes (Alternative

D)

Map 79. Heritage and Visual Resources - Regional Historic Trails and Early Highway-Intact

Portions (Alternatives A, C, and D)

Map 80. Heritage and Visual Resources - Regional Historic Trails and Early Highways

(Alternative B)

Map 81. Land Resources - Transportation Features

Map 82. Land Resources - Jeffrey City Area Transportation Features

Map 83. Land Resources - Lander Area Transportation Features

Map 84. Land Resources - Lysite Area Transportation Features

Map 85. Land Resources - Dubois Area Transportation Features

Map 86. Land Resources - 1987 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Map 87. Land Resources - Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 2009 Physical Setting

Map 88. Land Resources - Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 2009 Social Setting

Map 89. Land Resources - Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 2009 Operational Setting

Map 90. Land Resources - Recreation Management Areas (Alternative A)

Map 91. Land Resources - Recreation Management Areas (Alternative B)

Map 92. Land Resources - Recreation Management Areas and Recreation and Public

Purpose Act Leases (Alternative C)

Map 93. Land Resources - Recreation Management Areas and Recreation and Public

Purpose Act Leases (Alternative D)

February 2013 Appendix B Maps
1450 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Map 94. Land Resources - Lands Identified for Disposal, Retention, or Acquisition

(Alternatives A and D)

Map 95. Land Resources - Lands Identified for Disposal, Retention, or Acquisition

(Alternatives B and C)

Map 96. Land Resources - Wind Energy Potential

Map 97. Land Resources - Wind Energy Development Avoidance and Exclusion Areas

(Alternative A)

Map 98. Land Resources - Wind Energy Development Avoidance and Exclusion Areas

(Alternative B)

Map 99. Land Resources - Wind Energy Development Avoidance and Exclusion Areas

(Alternative C)

Map 100. Land Resources - Wind Energy Development Avoidance and Exclusion Areas

(Alternative D)

Map 101. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas (Alternative A)

Map 102. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas (Alternative B)

Map 103. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas (Alternative C)

Map 104. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas (Alternative D)

Map 105. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Designated Corridors and Communication

Sites (Alternative A)

Map 106. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Designated Corridors and Communication

Sites (Alternative B)

Map 107. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Designated Corridors and Communication

Sites (Alternative C)

Map 108. Land Resources - Rights-of-Way Designated Corridors and Communication

Sites (Alternative D)

Map 109. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management (Alternative A)

Map 110. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management (Alternative B)

Appendix B Maps February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1451

Map 111. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management (Alternative C)

Map 112. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management (Alternative D)

Map 113. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management Seasonal Limitation to All

Travel (Alternative D)

Map 114. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management Over-Snow Travel (Alternative

A)

Map 115. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management Over-Snow Travel (Alternative

B)

Map 116. Land Resources - Trails and Travel Management Over-Snow Travel (Alternative

D)

Map 117. Land Resources - Livestock Grazing (Alternatives A and C)

Map 118. Land Resources - Livestock Grazing (Alternative B)

Map 119. Land Resources - Livestock Grazing (Alternative D)

Map 120. Land Resources - Recreation Sites

Map 121. Special Designations - Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

Map 122. Special Designations - National Historic Trails High Potential Segments

Map 123. Special Designations - National Historic Trails with Associated Sites

Map 124. Special Designations - National Historic Trails (Alternative A)

Map 125. Special Designations - National Historic Trails (Alternative B)

Map 126. Special Designations - National Historic Trails (Alternative C)

Map 127. Special Designations - National Trails Management Corridor (Alternative D)

Map 128. Special Designations - Wilderness Study Areas

February 2013 Appendix B Maps
1452 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Map 129. Special Designations - Suitable Wild and Scenic River Segments (Alternatives A,

B, and D)

Map 130. Special Designations - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (Alternative A)

Map 131. Special Designations - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (Alternative B)

Map 132. Special Designations - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (Alternative D)

Map 133. Socioeconomic Resources - Tribal Census Tracts in the Wind River Indian

Reservation

Map 134. Mineral Resources - Designated Development Area (Alternative D)

Map 135. Mineral Resources - Areas with Master Leasing Plans (Alternative D)

Map 136. Cumulative Impact Analysis Area - Greater Sage-Grouse - Surface Ownership

Map 137. Cumulative Impact Analysis Area - Greater Sage-Grouse - Split Estate

Map 138. Cumulative Impact Analysis Area - Fourth Order Hydrologic Units

Map 139. Cumulative Impact Analysis Area - Wyoming Basin Ecoregion and Continental

Divide National Scenic Trail

Map 140. Cumulative Impact Analysis Area - National Historic Trails

Map 141. Land Resources - Lands Proposed for Exchange by Members of the Public

Map 142. Trails and Travel Management - Travel Management Areas

Appendix B Maps February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1453

Appendix C. Recreation Management Area

Forms

Recreation Program Objectives

This appendix is focused solely on detailing the management of distinct Special Recreation

Management Areas (SRMAs). Additional goals, objectives, and management actions for the

Distinct Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) and the rest of the planning area

is detailed in Chapter 2. Table C.1, “Lander Field Office Recreation and Visitor Services

Objectives” (p. 1453) below, displays the standard recreation objectives that apply to the entire

Lander Field Office regardless of SRMA or ERMA status. Table C.2, “Difference in Recreation

Management Areas” (p. 1454) below, displays the difference between SRMAs, Distinct ERMAs,

and the rest of the planning area.

Table C.1. Lander Field Office Recreation and Visitor Services Objectives

Lander Field Office Wide Objective(s)

● Resource Protection Objective: Increase awareness, understanding, and a sense of stewardship in recreational

activity participants so their conduct safeguards cultural and natural resources as defined by Wyoming Standards

for Public Land Health or area-specific (such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Wild and Scenic

Rivers) objectives.

● Visitor Health and Safety Objective: Ensure that visitors are not exposed to unhealthy or unsafe human-created

conditions (defined by a repeat or recurring incident in the same year, of the same type, in the same location,

due to the same cause).

● Use/User Conflict Objective: Achieve a minimum level of conflict between recreation participants and (1)

other resource/resource uses sufficient to enable the achievement of identified land use plan goals, objectives,

and actions; (2) private land owners sufficient to curb illegal trespass and property damage; and (3) other

recreation participants sufficient to maintain a diversity of recreation activity participation.

● Objectives Ensuring Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation.

○ Expand Wildlife-Dependent Recreation opportunities on federal land

○ Improve and enhance access to public lands important for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation opportunities

○ Ensure the enjoyment of Wildlife-Dependent Recreation among various demographic groups

○ Facilitate trophy/high quality hunting opportunities in Wyoming Game and Fish Department hunt units

targeted for special management criteria.

February 2013 Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms
1454 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table C.2. Difference in Recreation Management Areas

SRMA Distinct ERMA

The Rest of the Lander

Field Office

Recreation Opportunity

Management

Managed to provide

specific opportunities and

settings in response to

visitor demand.

Managed to provide

diverse opportunities,

as necessary to achieve

planning objectives.

Managed to provide a

diversity of recreation

opportunities and settings.

Allowable Uses and

Management Actions

Allowable uses and

management actions

must sustain or enhance

recreation settings

characteristics.

Allowable uses

and management

actions address

recreation-tourism issues,

activities, conflicts, and/or

particular recreation

setting.

Management Actions

and allowable uses may

be necessary to protect

resources or investments.

Management Common to

All Areas

All areas are managed to meet statutory requirements to ensure resource protection,

human health and safety, and reduce conflict as well as achieve other program planning

objectives.

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

Existing Management (Alternative A)

The 1987 Resource Management Plan (RMP) was drafted under old planning guidance and no

longer meets the minimum planning decision requirements directed at planning for recreation and

visitor services. Table C.3, “Existing Recreation Management (Alternative A)” (p. 1454) below,

outlines the general management direction detailed in the existing plan.

Table C.3. Existing Recreation Management (Alternative A)

Area Name Area Type Management Focus (Planning

Objective)

National Historic Trail SRMA A management plan will provide

detailed planning for SRMAs.

Continental Divide National Scenic

Trail

SRMA A management plan will provide

detailed planning for SRMAs.

South Pass SRMA Management will be oriented toward

maintaining recreational opportunities

in terms of rustic, open-space settings.

● Green Mountain Management

Unit

● Gas Hills Management Unit

○ Lysite Badlands

○ Sweetwater Rocks

○ Copper Mountain

● Beaver Creek Management Unit

○ Government Draw

○ Beaver Rim

● Lander Slope Management Unit

ERMA Recreation management will

emphasize the resolution of user

conflicts/competing uses and provide

for resource protection.

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1455

Area Name Area Type Management Focus (Planning

Objective)

● East Fork Management Unit

● Dubois Management Unit

○ Warm Springs Canyon

Red Canyon Management Unit ERMA No direction provided.

Whiskey Mountain Management Unit ERMA The BLM will cooperate with the

WGFD on non-consumptive wildlife

visitor use management.

Dubois Badlands ERMA The area will be managed in its

natural state. Recreation management

will emphasize resolving competing

uses and providing for resource

protection.

BLM Bureau of Land Management

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

As Table C.3, “Existing Recreation Management (Alternative A)” (p. 1454) demonstrates,

historic planning for the recreation resource provided little future direction. This lack of direction

resulted in several instances where visitor services and management actions were disjointed and

sometimes in direct conflict with one another. For existing management to be in compliance with

the new Land Use Planning Guidance, the management direction would need to be substantially

overhauled so as to provide a similar level of detail contained under alternatives B and C.

Table C.4, “Special Recreation Management Areas” (p. 1455) and Table C.5, “Distinct Extensive

Recreation Management Areas” (p. 1456) below, display the recreation management areas for the

various alternatives.

Table C.4. Special Recreation Management Areas

Area Name Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

CDNST Destination SRMA

● Alkali Basin RMZ

● Sweetwater Mining RMZ

SRMA

(See Table C.3,

“Existing Recreation

Management

(Alternative

A)” (p. 1454))

SRMA See CDNST ERMA Same as

Alternative B

National Trails Undeveloped

SRMA

SRMA (See

Table C.3,

“Existing Recreation

Management

(Alternative

A)” (p. 1454))

SRMA See NHT and

CDNST ERMA

Same as

Alternative B

(fewer acres)

Dubois Millsite Community

SRMA

Planning area wide

ERMA

SRMA SRMA Same as

Alternative B

Lander Community SRMA

● Johnny Behind The Rocks

RMZ

● Sinks Canyon RMZ

● The Bus @ Baldwin Creek

RMZ

Planning area wide

ERMA

SRMA Planning area wide

ERMA

Same as

Alternative B

(fewer acres)

February 2013 Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms
1456 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Area Name Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

NHTs Destination SRMA

● NHTs Auto Tour Route RMZ

● NHTs Group Use RMZ

SRMA (see

Table C.3,

“Existing Recreation

Management

(Alternative

A)” (p. 1454))

SRMA See NHT ERMA SRMA

Sweetwater Canyon Undeveloped

SRMA

Planning area wide

ERMA

SRMA Distinct ERMA SRMA

Sweetwater Rocks Undeveloped

SRMA

Distinct ERMA SRMA Distinct ERMA SRMA (fewer

acres than

Alternative B)

CDNST Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area

NHT National Historic Trail

RMZ Recreation Management Zone

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

Table C.5. Distinct Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Castle Gardens ERMA

Copper Mountains WSA

Dubois Badlands WSA

Distinct ERMA Distinct ERMA Distinct ERMA No Recreation

Management

Area

Beaver Creek Nordic Ski Area Planning area wide

ERMA

Distinct ERMA Distinct ERMA Distinct ERMA

Coalmine/Government Draw Distinct ERMA Distinct ERMA R&PP Lease No Lease, No

Recreation

Management

Area

Green Mountain

ERMA and ACEC

Lander Slope/Red Canyon ACECs

Whiskey Mountain/Eastfork

ACECs

Distinct ERMA Distinct ERMA Distinct ERMA Same as

Alternative C

Muskrat Basin ERMA

Agate Flats ERMA

Planning area wide

ERMA

Distinct ERMA Distinct ERMA No Recreation

Management

Area

NHTs ERMA

(1⁄4 mile on either side of the Trail

not contained within a SRMA)

SRMA (see

Table C.4,

“Special Recreation

Management

Areas” (p. 1455))

Distinct ERMA

(Portions of the

trail) (more acres

than Alternative

C)

Distinct ERMA

(entire trail)

(fewer acres than

Alternative B)

Same as

Alternative B

CDNST ERMA

(Trail area not contained within a

SRMA)

SRMA (see

Table C.4,

“Special Recreation

Management

Areas” (p. 1455))

Distinct ERMA

(1⁄4 mile on either

side of portions

of the trail)

(fewer acres than

Alternative C)

Distinct ERMA

(1⁄4 mile on

either side of

the entire trail)

(more acres than

Alternative B)

Same as

Alternative B

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

CDNST Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area

NHT National Historic Trail

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

WSA Wilderness Study Area

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1457

Continental Divide National Scenic Trails (Alternatives B and D)

Table C.6. Alkali Basin Recreation Management Zone

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

This documents the rationale for consideration of the Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA)

in the planning process and, if selected, designation of the SRMA in the record of decision.

This SRMA is necessary to accommodate national visitor demand for destination oriented long distance trail

opportunities in semi-arid sagebrush step regions; this demand has been identified by onsite customers, through

community involvement workshops, and through the enabling legislation for the Continental Divide National Scenic

Trail (CDNST). The CDNST in the area runs along a high plateau that provides overlook views of the great divide

basin, numerous prairie and mountain wildlife species, and is a physically challenging trail. SRMA management

will sustain and enhance these amenities as well as accommodate the visitor demand.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

Objectives describe the intended recreation activities, experiences and benefits. SRMAs

may be subdivided into RMZs with discrete objectives.

Objective Statement: The Alkali Basin RMZ of the CDNST Destination SRMA will be sustained or enhanced for

thru-travelers and middle country hunters (fall) to engage in horseback riding, hiking, hunting (fall), and mountain

biking, so that participants in visitor assessments/surveys indicate a higher than average (mean average of 4.0 on a 5

point scale) realization of experience and benefit outcomes listed below:

Activities: Horse riding/packing, Hiking/backpacking, and Hunting (fall)

Experiences: Enjoying the sensory experience of a natural landscape, Testing endurance, Escaping everyday

responsibilities and, and Being isolated and independent.

Benefits: Enhanced awareness and understanding of nature, Closer relationship with the natural world, Improved

opportunity to view wildlife close-up, Improved mental health, Improved physical health, Greater retention

of distinctive natural landscape features, and Enhanced ability for visitors and residents to find areas providing

desired recreation experiences and benefits.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTIONS

Physical, social and operational recreation setting qualities to be maintained or enhanced.

Physical Characteristics: The CDNST in the area will continue to be on or near motorized routes but at least a 1⁄2

mile from improved roads, though they may be in sight. The natural setting of the area may have modifications

that would be noticed but not draw the attention of an observer wandering through the area (Visual Resource

Management Class II). Facilities and structures in support of recreation and other uses will continue to be rare.

Social Characteristics: Average encounters per day during peak CDNST use season (July-September), will

not exceed for three consecutive years, 3 encounters per day at known campsite locations, and 6 encounters per

day on travel routes. Usual group size will be small.

Operational Characteristics: 4-wheel drive vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or over-snow vehicles, in

addition to nonmotorized mechanized use will continue to be allowed when the trail is on existing or open roads so

long as the use does not interfere with the nature and purpose of the CDNST. Motorized vehicles are not allowed on

areas where the trail travels cross-country off existing roads or where the trail travels along a closed road. Onsite

controls and services will continue to be present but subtle. Offsite services and controls will be provided in the

minimum amount necessary to reach management objectives.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Land use plan-level management actions and allowable use decisions for the recreation and visitor

services program and other programs necessary to: support the recreation objective, maintain

or enhance the desired Recreation Setting Characteristics, address visitor health/safety, mitigate

recreation impacts on cultural/natural resources, and reduce use/user conflicts.

February 2013

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Continental Divide National Scenic Trails

(Alternatives B and D)
1458 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Recreation and Visitor Services Program:

● Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, experiences,

and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

● The area will be closed to competitive events. Other Special Recreation Permits will be allowed in this area

so long as setting condition and outcome objectives can be maintained.

● Continue to enhance the availability of dependable non-potable water sources for trail hikers.

● Ensure targeted experiences and benefits as well as recreation setting information is included and explained in

all visitor information.

● Existing offsite and onsite visitor orientation (kiosk, signs, and informational brochures) will be maintained

and enhanced.

● Consider the use of a memorandum of understanding or other cooperative agreement between the Bureau of

Land Management and pertinent partners to maintain and enhance the area.

Other Programs:

● Class II Visual Resource,

● Additional Allowable Use Decisions for the CDNST are contained in Table 2.33, “7000 Special Designations

(SD) – Congressionally Designated Trails” (p. 191).

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. If implementation decisions are

included in the land use planning document they must have site-specific environmental analysis

and be clearly distinguished as appealable decisions.

Implementation Decisions: (e.g., the land use plan decision may be to designate overnight camping areas while the

supporting implementation decisions would address specific site locations, size, and amenities to be provided.)

Table C.7. Sweetwater Mining Recreation Management Zone

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

This Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) is necessary to accommodate national and regional visitor

demand for destination oriented long distance trail and day use trail hiking/learning opportunities in a richly historic

area. This demand has been identified by onsite customers, through community involvement workshops, and

through the enabling legislation for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST). The CDNST in the

area runs through the historic Sweetwater Mining District where historic remains are interpreted and stabilized for

public enjoyment. Several existing facilities in the area provide camping, and day use trail/driving for pleasure

opportunities. The area also contains a high diversity of vegetation and wildlife, providing additional opportunities

for sightseeing and wildlife oriented recreation. SRMA management will sustain and enhance these amenities, as

well as accommodate the visitor demand.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

Objective Statement: Manage the Sweetwater Mining District RMZ of the CDNST Destination SRMA for day

user and CDNST thru-travelers to engage in cultural site visitation, driving for pleasure, photography, horseback

riding, hiking, and mountain biking, so that participants in visitor assessments/surveys indicate a higher than average

(mean average of 4.0 on a 5 point scale) realization of experience and benefit outcomes listed below:

Activities: Cultural site visitation, Driving for pleasure, Photography, Horse riding/packing, Developed site

camping, Hiking/backpacking, and Mountain biking.

Experiences: Testing your endurance, Enjoying the closeness of friends and family, Learning more about things

here, Feeling good about the way our cultural heritage is being protected, and Developing skills and abilities.

Benefits: Improved capacity for outdoor physical activity, Improved mental health, Stronger ties with my family and

friends, Greater respect for cultural heritage, Increased appreciation of area’s cultural heritage, Greater opportunity

for people with different skills to exercise in the same place, Greater household awareness of and appreciation for

our cultural heritage, Greater protection of area historic structures and archeological sites, and Enhanced ability for

visitors and residents to find areas providing desired recreation experiences and benefits.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTIONS

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Continental Divide National Scenic Trails

(Alternatives B and D) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1459

Physical Characteristics: The CDNST in the area will continue to be on or near motorized routes but at least a 1⁄2

mile from improved roads, though they may be in sight. The natural setting of the area may have modifications

that would be noticed but not draw the attention of an observer wandering through the area (Visual Resource

Management Class II). Facilities and structures in support of recreation and other uses will continue to be rare along

the CDNST. Additional facilities and structures may be added in areas out of sight or away from the CDNST.

Social Characteristics: On the CDNST usually 7-14 encounters per day will occur off travel routes (e.g., staging

areas, campgrounds), and 15-29 encounters per day en route. Usual group size is small to moderate. Encounters will

largely increase around developed sites and roads adjacent to the CDNST.

Operational Characteristics: 4-wheel drive vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or over-snow vehicles in

addition to nonmotorized mechanized use, are allowed in the area. Motorized uses will not be encouraged or

facilitated on the CDNST. Motorized or mechanized use will not interfere with the nature and purpose of the

CDNST. Motorized vehicles are not allowed off existing roads, on areas where the trail travels cross-country off

existing roads, or where the trail travels along a closed road or nonmotorized trail. Onsite controls and services

will be present but harmonize with the natural and historic environment.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Recreation and Visitor Services Program:

● Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, experiences,

and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

● Continue to enhance the availability of dependable non-potable water sources for trail hikers.

● Motorized and mechanized travel in the SRMA is limited to existing roads and trails.

● Work with the local back country horsemen to teach equine Leave No Trace, as well as potentially provide

additional horseback facilities (corrals etc.) and trails.

● Investigate opportunities to re-route the CDNST near Phelps-Dodge Bridge, so thru-hikers do not have to

parallel the Atlantic City-Three Forks County Road.

● The CDNST through the area will be closed to competitive events, however other Special Recreation Permits

will be permitted so long as setting condition and outcome objectives can be maintained.

● Ensure targeted experiences and benefits as well as recreation setting information is included and explained in

all visitor information.

● Work with partners to provide additional interpretation of the historic buildings and other remnants.

● Implement the Miners Delight Interpretation Plan.

● Develop SRMA information and interpretation that connects trail opportunities with developed sites and

campgrounds.

● Develop better onsite visitor orientation so visitors to the South Pass State Park are aware of 1⁄2 and 1 day

CDNST and Volksmarch trail opportunities in the area.

● Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: monitor outcome attainment and preferences through

customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies).

● Monitor recreation setting condition through onsite patrols during the trails high use season (June-September).

Other Programs:

● Class II Visual Resource,

● Additional Allowable Use Decisions for the CDNST are contained in Table 2.33, “7000 Special Designations

(SD) – Congressionally Designated Trails” (p. 191).

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation Decisions: (e.g., the land use plan decision may be to designate overnight camping areas while the

supporting implementation decisions would address specific site locations, size, and amenities to be provided.)

February 2013

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Continental Divide National Scenic Trails

(Alternatives B and D)
1460 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Designated Trails Undeveloped Special Recreation Management

Area (Alternatives B and D)

Table C.8. Designated Trails Recreation Management Zone

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

This Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) is necessary to accommodate local and national visitor demand

for undeveloped Congressionally Designated Trail opportunities in semi-arid sagebrush step regions; this demand

has been identified by onsite customers, through community involvement workshops, visitor surveys, and through

the enabling legislation of the National Historic and Scenic Trails. The area contains 3 Congressionally Designated

Trails including: Oregon and California National Historic Trails and the Continental Divide National Scenic

Trail (CDNST). The area has abundant prairie wildlife, nearly pristine Wyoming Basin viewshed, and a high

probability for solitude. SRMA management will sustain and enhance these amenities as well as accommodate

the visitor demand.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

Objective Statement: The Designated Trails Undeveloped SRMA will be sustained or enhanced for individuals or

small groups of historic trail ‘rut buffs’, CDNST thru-hikers, and middle country hunters (fall season) to engage in

cultural site visitation, driving for pleasure, photography, horseback riding, hunting, and hiking so that participants

in visitor assessments/surveys indicate a higher than average (mean average of 4.0 on a 5 point scale) realization of

experience and benefit outcomes listed below:

Activities: Cultural site visitation, Driving for pleasure/photography, Horseback riding, Hiking/backpacking,

and Hunting.

Experiences: Enjoying exploring on my own or in small groups, Enjoying nature, Reflecting on the historical

significance of the trail and the people who traveled it, and Feeling good about solitude.

Benefits: Better mental health and health maintenance, Greater respect and appreciation for the areas cultural

history, Greater appreciation of the outdoors environment, Closer relationship with the natural world, Greater

household awareness of and appreciation of our cultural heritage, Protection of cultural sites, Maintenance of

distinctive historical recreation setting, and Increased sense of stewardship for the resource.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTIONS

Physical Characteristics: Majority of the area is on or near 4-wheel drive roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from all

improved roads, though they may be in sight. Natural setting may have subtle modifications that would be

noticed but not draw the attention of the casual observer wandering through the area. Trails may exist but do not

exceed standard to carry expected use. Facilities and structures are extremely rare. However, nonmotorized trail

opportunities will be the focus for visitor services/facilities in this area.

Social Characteristics: Usually fewer than 3-6 encounters per day on the Congressionally Designated Trails.

Usually group sizes are small in relation to the surrounding area.

Operational Characteristics: 4-wheel drive vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or over-snow vehicles in

addition to nonmotorized mechanized use, are allowed in the area so long as the use does not interfere with the

nature and purpose of the CDNST. Motorized uses will not be encouraged or facilitated in the area. Motorized

vehicles are not allowed off existing roads, on areas where the trail travels cross-country off existing roads, or

where the trail travels along a closed road or nonmotorized trail. Onsite controls and services present but subtle.

Minimum amount necessary to achieve planning objectives.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Designated Trails Undeveloped Special Recreation

Management Area (Alternatives B and D) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1461

Recreation and Visitor Services Program:

● Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, experiences,

and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

● The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and partners will review (using the BLM's contrast rating system)

existing facilities and interpretive exhibits to ensure designs harmonize with the characteristic landscape;

designs out of character with the landscape will be modified so as not to overpower the landscape.

● Emergency closures will be imposed when necessary to protect the historic trail resource.

● The BLM will not authorize temporary: facilities, campsites, or staging/parking areas to support Special

Recreation Permits within this RMZ. Motorized tours will not be authorized in this RMZ.

● In this RMZ, the BLM will authorize special recreation permits for trail oriented nonmotorized group activities

consistent with the outcome objective and recreation setting prescriptions above.

● No competitive events will be authorized in this RMZ.

● Additional management actions will be applied as needed to reduce unplanned visitor impacts (vandalism, social

trails, and litter etc.). Ensure targeted experiences and benefits as well as recreation setting information is

included and explained in all visitor information.

● Ensure targeted experiences and benefits as well as recreation setting information is included and explained in

all offsite visitor information.

● Some light onsite visitor orientation (kiosk and trail markers) will be developed.

● No new onsite interpretation will be developed on the National Historic Trail in this area.

● Engage local businesses and other partners to ensure promotional material does not over advertise the area.

● Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through

customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies).

● Monitor recreation setting condition through onsite patrols during the trails high use season (June-September).

Other Programs:

● Class II Visual Resource.

● Additional Allowable Use Decisions for the CDNST and the National Historic Trails are contained in Table 2.33,

“7000 Special Designations (SD) – Congressionally Designated Trails” (p. 191).

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation Decisions: (e.g., the land use plan decision may be to designate overnight camping areas while the

supporting implementation decisions would address specific site locations, size, and amenities to be provided.)

Dubois Mill Site Special Recreation Management Area

(Alternatives B and D)

Table C.9. Dubois Mill Site Recreation Management Zone (Alternatives B and D)

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

This documents the rationale for consideration of the Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA)

in the planning process and, if selected, designation of the SRMA in the record of decision.

This SRMA is necessary to accommodate local visitor demand for close to home nonmotorized recreation

opportunities; this demand has been identified by onsite customers, through community involvement workshops, and

through the Dubois Gateway Plan. The public lands in this area are adjacent to newly acquired lands managed by

the town of Dubois as open space and a recreational use area for the citizens. These newly acquired lands currently

provide undeveloped nonmotorized access to large blocks of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered

land, a Wyoming Game and Fish Department habitat management area, and U.S. Forest Service lands. The public

lands in the area contain a multitude of wildlife oriented recreation opportunities as well as several scenic vistas.

SRMA management will sustain and enhance these amenities as well as accommodate the visitor demand.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

Objectives describe the intended recreation activities, experiences and benefits. SRMAs

may be subdivided into RMZs with discrete objectives.

February 2013

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Dubois Mill Site Special Recreation Management

Area (Alternatives B and D)
1462 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Objective Statement: The Dubois Mill-Site Community SRMA will be sustained or enhanced for nonmotorized

recreationists to engage in hiking, walking, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, and hunting so that participants in

visitor assessments/surveys report a higher than average (mean average of 4.0 on a 5 point scale) realization of

experience and benefit outcomes listed below:

Activities: Hiking, Walking, Running, Horseback riding, Wildlife viewing, and Hunting.

Experiences: Escaping everyday responsibilities for a while, Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity

in a natural environment, and Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views, and aesthetics.

Benefits: Better mental and physical health, Increased satisfaction with life, Greater cultivation of an outdoor

oriented lifestyle, Greater understanding and respect for private property, Heightened sense of community pride and

satisfaction, Greater environmental awareness and stewardship, Greater aesthetic appreciation, and Preservation of

this special place.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTIONS

Physical, social and operational recreation setting qualities to be maintained or enhanced.

Physical Characteristics: The area is within 1⁄2 mile of the town of Dubois. The natural setting may have

modifications that would be noticed but not draw the attention of an observer wandering through the area. Trails

may exist but will not exceed standard and density to carry expected use. Facilities and structures are rare and within

close proximity to highway/parking area.

Social Characteristics: Usually 7-14 encounters with other groups per day.

Operational Characteristics: Mountain bikes and other mechanized use, but all use is nonmotorized. Onsite

controls and services are present, but harmonize with the natural environment. Offsite services such as an area

brochure will be available.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Land use plan-level management actions and allowable use decisions for the recreation and visitor

services program and other programs necessary to: support the recreation objective, maintain

or enhance the desired Recreation Setting Characteristics, address visitor health/safety, mitigate

recreation impacts on cultural/natural resources, and reduce use/user conflicts.

Recreation and Visitor Services Program:

● Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, experiences,

and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

● Pursue partnerships with the town of Dubois and other Dubois Gateway Plan partners to ensure continued

enforcement of travel management designations.

● Establish light connecting nonmotorized loop trails, as discussed in community project plan.

● Develop partnerships to pursue land acquisitions and easements necessary to maintain characteristic landscape,

natural setting, and targeted experiences and benefits.

● Ensure targeted experiences and benefits, as well as recreation setting information is included and explained in

all visitor information.

● Promote the RMZ to the Dubois community through partnerships with local community businesses and the

town of Dubois.

● Light interpretation may be developed to facilitate targeted outcomes; utilize community members, academic

organizations, and community centers to meet needs for higher levels of education and interpretation.

● The BLM will assist the community with project design, technical expertise, and other services in order to help

achieve the objectives outlined in the Dubois Gateway Plan document.

● Develop a memorandum of understanding between the BLM, Dubois Gateway Plan members, and the

community of Dubois to ensure continued cooperative community stewardship of public lands contained

within the RMZ.

● Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: monitor outcome attainment and preferences through

customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies).

● Monitor recreation setting condition through onsite patrols (June-September).

Other Programs:

● Closed to Fluid Mineral Leasing (alternatives B and D)

● Closed to Geothermal Development (alternatives B and D)

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Dubois Mill Site Special Recreation Management

Area (Alternatives B and D) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1463

● Closed to Geophysical Exploration (alternatives B and D)

● Closed To Mineral Material Sales and Free Use Permits (alternatives B and D)

● New rights-of-ways are excluded (alternatives B and D)

● Renewable Energy Development is excluded (alternatives B and D)

● Petition to withdrawal from entry under the 1872 Mining Law (alternatives B and D)

● The SRMA is managed as a Class II Visual Resource (alternatives B and D)

● Closed to motorized vehicle use (alternatives B and D)

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. If implementation decisions are

included in the land use planning document they must have site-specific environmental analysis

and be clearly distinguished as appealable decisions.

Implementation Decisions: (e.g., the land use plan decision may be to designate overnight camping areas while the

supporting implementation decisions would address specific site locations, size, and amenities to be provided.)

Dubois Mill Site Special Recreation Management Area

(Alternative C)

Table C.10. Dubois Mill Site Recreation Management Zone (Alternative C)

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

This documents the rationale for consideration of the Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA)

in the planning process and, if selected, designation of the SRMA in the record of decision.

Same as alternatives B and D except for the following: SRMA management will sustain and enhance motorized

access to the area as well as accommodate the visitor demand.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

Objectives describe the intended recreation activities, experiences and benefits. SRMAs

may be subdivided into RMZs with discrete objectives.

Objective Statement: The Dubois Mill-Site Community SRMA will be sustained or enhanced for nonmotorized

and motorized recreationists to engage in hiking, walking, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, hunting, and

motorized trail riding, so that participants in visitor assessments/surveys report a higher than average (mean average

of 4.0 on a 5 point scale) realization of experience and benefit outcomes listed below:

Activities: Hiking, Walking, Running, Horseback riding, Wildlife viewing, Hunting, and Motorized trail riding.

Experiences: Escaping everyday responsibilities for a while, Developing skills and abilities, Enjoying having access

to close to home outdoor amenities, Enjoying risk taking, and Sharing/talking about your equipment with others.

Benefits: Better mental and physical health, Increased satisfaction with life, Greater cultivation of an outdoor

oriented lifestyle, Improved outdoor recreation skills, Greater sense of adventure, Enhanced sense of freedom,

Greater opportunity for people with different skills to exercise in the same place, Improved physical capacity to do

my favorite activity, Greater understanding and respect for private property, and Heightened sense of community

pride and satisfaction.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTIONS

Physical, social and operational recreation setting qualities to be maintained or enhanced.

February 2013

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Dubois Mill Site Special Recreation Management

Area (Alternative C)
1464 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Physical Characteristics: Within 1⁄2 mile of the town of Dubois. Motorized use will be allowed on the designated

trail through the area. Natural setting may have modifications that would be noticed, but not draw the attention of an

observer wandering through the area. Trails may exist but do not exceed standard and density to carry expected use.

Facilities and structures are rare and within close proximity to highway/parking area.

Social Characteristics: Usually 7-14 encounters with other groups per day.

Operational Characteristics: Motorized use will be allowed on the identified trail (existing access road); the area

southwest of the existing access road along Jakey’s Fork Rim will be closed to motorized vehicle use. Onsite

controls and services are present, but harmonize with the natural environment. Offsite services such as an area

brochure will be available.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Land use plan-level management actions and allowable use decisions for the recreation and visitor

services program and other programs necessary to: support the recreation objective, maintain

or enhance the desired Recreation Setting Characteristics, address visitor health/safety, mitigate

recreation impacts on cultural/natural resources, and reduce use/user conflicts.

Recreation and Visitor Services Program:

● Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, experiences,

and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

● Pursue partnerships with the town of Dubois and other Dubois Gateway Plan partners to ensure continued

enforcement of travel management designations.

● Establish light connecting nonmotorized loop trails as discussed in community project plan.

● Work with the state trails program to ensure effective enforcement of motorized travel limitations in the area.

● Motorized seasonal closures will be implemented with gates at the best available location for enforcement

and to ensure control of motorized use.

● The area will be closed to over snow travel.

● Develop partnerships to pursue land acquisitions and easements necessary to maintain characteristic landscape,

natural setting, and targeted experiences and benefits.

● Ensure targeted experiences and benefits as well as recreation setting information is included and explained in

all visitor information.

● Promote the RMZ to the Dubois community through partnerships with local community businesses and the

town of Dubois.

● Light interpretation may be developed to facilitate targeted outcomes; utilize community members, academic

organizations, and community centers to meet needs for higher levels of education and interpretation.

● The BLM will assist the community with project design, technical expertise, and other services, in order to help

achieve the objectives outlined in the Dubois Gateway Plan document.

● Develop a memorandum of understanding between the Bureau of Land Management, Dubois Gateway Plan

members, and the community of Dubois to ensure continued cooperative community stewardship of public

lands contained within the RMZ.

● Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: monitor outcome attainment and preferences through

customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies).

● Monitor recreation setting condition through onsite patrols (June-September).

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. If implementation decisions are

included in the land use planning document they must have site-specific environmental analysis

and be clearly distinguished as appealable decisions.

Implementation Decisions: (e.g., the land use plan decision may be to designate overnight camping areas while the

supporting implementation decisions would address specific site locations, size, and amenities to be provided.)

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Dubois Mill Site Special Recreation Management

Area (Alternative C) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1465

Lander Community Special Recreation Management Area

(Alternatives B and D)

Table C.11. Johnny Behind the Rocks Recreation Management Zone

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

This Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) is necessary to accommodate local visitor demand for close to

home nonmotorized recreation opportunities in the Lander area; this demand has been identified by onsite customers

and through community involvement workshops. The public lands in this area are located within a 15 minute

drive of the town of Lander. The area currently provides a limited amount of nonmotorized trail opportunities,

with diverse and appealing topography. The public lands in the area also contain a multitude of wildlife oriented

recreation opportunities as well as several scenic vistas including a prairie waterfall. SRMA management will

sustain and enhance these amenities as well as accommodate the visitor demand.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

Objective Statement: The Johnny Behind the Rocks RMZ of the Lander Community SRMA will be sustained or

enhanced for nonmotorized recreationists to engage in horseback riding, hiking, trail running, wildlife viewing, and

mountain biking so that participants in visitor assessments/surveys report a higher than average (mean average of

4.0 on a 5 point scale) realization of experience and benefit outcomes listed below:

Activities: Horseback riding, Trail running, Mountain biking, Hiking, and Wildlife viewing.

Experiences: Enjoying the sensory experience of a natural landscape, Enjoying exercise and physical fitness,

Developing skills and abilities, Enjoying having access to close to home outdoor amenities, and Feeling that

this community is a special place to live.

Benefits: Improved mental and physical health, Greater connection to nature, Improved opportunity to view

wildlife close up, Greater sense of place, Improved outdoor recreation skills, Heightened sense of satisfaction with

our community, and Reduced adverse human impacts such as litter, vegetative trampling, and unplanned trails.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTIONS

Physical Characteristics: Majority of the area is on or near improved country roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from any

highways, except in the area directly adjacent to Highway 287. Natural setting may have subtle modifications that

would be noticed but not draw the attention of the casual observer wandering through the area. Facility and trail

development will focus on sufficient densities and developments to provide for a full day (6 to 8 hours or up to

40 miles of trail) of use. Facilities and structures will continue to be rare and co-located within close proximity

to highway/parking area.

Social Characteristics: Usually 3-6 encounters per day off travel routes and 7-15 encounters per day on travel

routes. Usual group size is small.

Operational Characteristics: Excluding county roads, adjacent highway, the Blue Ridge Road, and livestock

permittee access to range improvements; the area will be managed for mountain bikes and non motorized use.

Mechanized trail building will be approved as needed to support the identified outcome objective. Onsite controls

and services are present, but harmonize with the natural environment.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

February 2013

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Lander Community Special Recreation Management

Area (Alternatives B and D)
1466 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Recreation and Visitor Services Program:

● Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, experiences,

and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

● Implement closures to motorized vehicle use; utilize administrative access agreements to allow for the

maintenance of range improvements.

● New trails will be identified in a master trails plan developed through implementation-level decision making.

● Pursue a land trade and access agreements for parcels in and adjacent to this RMZ.

● Ensure targeted experiences and benefits as well as recreation setting information is included and explained in

all offsite visitor information.

● Engage local sporting good businesses and other partners in the development and distribution of a brochure

and/or area guide book.

● Some light onsite visitor orientation (kiosk and trail markers) will be developed.

● This RMZ will be managed in a custodial fashion, until which time that a ‘friends group’ or local club

demonstrates a willingness to be involved in the management and stewardship of the site.

● A memorandum of understanding (MOU) will be developed between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

and pertinent partners such as livestock grazing permittees, local sporting good retailers, and an established

friends group or club. The MOU will assign responsibility for the stewardship and development of the site and

related amenities; the majority of the cost and labor responsibilities associated with initial investments and

maintenance of the identified trails and related amenities will be born upon the established friends group or club.

● The BLM and other partners will provide matching contributions when funding and labor pool allows.

● Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: monitor outcome attainment and preferences through

customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies).

● Monitor recreation setting condition through onsite patrols May-November.

Other Programs:

● No Surface Occupancy for Oil and Gas Development (alternatives B and D)

● Closed to Geothermal Development (alternatives B and D)

● Closed to Geophysical Exploration (alternatives B and D)

● Closed To Material Sales and Free Use Permits (alternatives B and D)

● Closed to sand and gravel disposal (alternatives B and D)

● New rights-of-ways are excluded (alternatives B and D)

● Renewable Energy Development is excluded (alternatives B and D)

● Closed to salable materials (alternatives B and D)

● Petition to withdrawal from entry under the 1872 Mining Law (alternatives B and D)

● The SRMA is managed as a Class II Visual Resource (alternatives B and D)

● Closed to motorized vehicle use (alternatives B and D)

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation Decisions: (e.g., the land use plan decision may be to designate overnight camping areas while the

supporting implementation decisions would address specific site locations, size, and amenities to be provided.)

Table C.12. Sinks Canyon Recreation Management Zone

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

This Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) is necessary to accommodate local visitor demand for close to

home nonmotorized muscle powered recreation opportunities in the Lander area; this demand has been identified by

onsite customers and through community involvement workshops. The area currently provides a limited amount of

nonmotorized trail opportunities, and world renowned climbing opportunities. Adjacent to Wyoming State Parks

and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands, provide additional day hiking and overnight camping opportunities. SRMA

management will sustain and enhance these amenities as well as accommodate the visitor demand.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Lander Community Special Recreation Management

Area (Alternatives B and D) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1467

The Sinks Canyon Climbing area of the Lander Valley Community SRMA will be sustained or enhanced for

muscle-powered recreationists to engage in climbing and hiking so that participants in visitor assessments/surveys

report a higher than average (mean average of 4.0 on a 5 point scale) realization of experience and benefit outcomes

below:

Activities: Climbing, and Hiking.

Experiences: Enjoying risk taking adventure, Developing skills and abilities, Enjoying meeting new people,

Enjoying teaching others about the outdoors, Feeling that this community is a special place to live, and Feeling good

about how this attraction is being used and enjoyed.

Benefits: Improved mental and physical health, Improved skills for outdoor enjoyment, Improved leadership

abilities, Improved teamwork and cooperation, Better sense of place, Heightened sense of satisfaction with our

community, Increased local tourism revenue, and Greater value-added local services/industry.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTIONS

Physical Characteristics: Majority of the area is on or near improved country roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from any

highways, except in the area directly adjacent to Highway 287. Natural setting may have subtle modifications that

would be noticed but not draw the attention of the casual observer wandering through the area. Trails may exist but

do not exceed standard and density to carry expected use. Facilities and structures are rare and isolated.

Social Characteristics: People seem to be everywhere, but human contact remains intermittent.

Operational Characteristics: Excluding county roads, adjacent highway, adjacent United States Forest Service

(USFS) and private roads; motorized use will not be allowed on Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered

lands. Onsite controls and services are present, but harmonize with the natural environment. Majority of services

are provided by the Wyoming State Parks and USFS.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS & ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Recreation and Visitor Services Program:

● Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, experiences,

and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

● Implement closures to mechanized and motorized travel (Alternative B only).

● Mechanized and motorized travel limited to designated roads and trails (alternatives A and C).

● Work with local climbing community and adjacent land management agencies to maintain this area.

● Ensure targeted experiences and benefits as well as recreation setting information is included and explained in

all visitor information.

● Engage local sporting good businesses and other partners in the development and distribution of a brochure

and/or area guide book.

● Some onsite visitor orientation (kiosk and trail markers) will be developed.

● A memorandum of understanding will be developed between the BLM and pertinent partners such as local

sporting goods retailers, Wyoming State Parks, the National Outdoor Leadership School, and an established

friends group or club.

● The BLM and other partners will provide matching contributions when funding and labor pool allows.

● Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: monitor outcome attainment and preferences through

customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies).

● Monitor recreation setting condition through onsite patrols.

Other Programs:

● No Surface Occupancy for Oil and Gas Development (alternatives A, B, and D)

● Closed to Geothermal Development (alternatives A, B, and D)

● Closed to Geophysical Exploration (alternatives A, B, and D)

● Closed To Material Sales and Free Use Permits (alternatives A, B, and D)

● New rights-of-ways are excluded (alternatives A, B, and D)

● Renewable Energy Development is excluded (alternatives A, B, and D)

● Petition to withdrawal from entry under the 1872 Mining Law (Alternative B)

● The SRMA is managed as a Class II Visual Resource (alternatives A, B, and D)

● Mineral entry requires a Plan of Operations (alternatives A and D)

● Closed to motorized vehicle use (alternatives B and D)

● Motorized use limited to designated roads (Alternative A)

● Mechanized use limited to designated roads and trails (Alternative B)

February 2013

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Lander Community Special Recreation Management

Area (Alternatives B and D)
1468 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation Decisions: (e.g., the land use plan decision may be to designate overnight camping areas while the

supporting implementation decisions would address specific site locations, size, and amenities to be provided.)

Table C.13. The Bus @ Baldwin Creek Recreation Management Zone

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

This Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) is necessary to accommodate local visitor demand for close to

home nonmotorized recreation opportunities in the Lander area; this demand has been identified by onsite customers

and through community involvement workshops. The public lands in this area are located within walking and pedal

biking distance from the town of Lander. The area currently provides a limited amount of nonmotorized trail

opportunities, with diverse and appealing topography, and some slick rock formations. SRMA management will

sustain and enhance these amenities as well as accommodate the visitor demand.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

The Bus @ Baldwin Creek RMZ of the Lander Valley Community SRMA will be sustained or enhanced for

nonmotorized recreationists to engage in horseback riding, hiking, trail running, and mountain biking, so that

participants in visitor assessments/surveys report a higher than average (mean average of 4.0 on a 5 point scale)

realization of experience and benefit outcomes listed below:

Activities: Horseback riding, Trail running, Mountain biking, and Hiking.

Experiences: Enjoying having easy access to natural landscapes, Enjoying exercise and physical fitness, Enjoying

closeness of friends and family, Enjoying having access to close to home outdoor amenities, and Feeling that

this community is a special place to live.

Benefits: Improved mental and physical health, Greater connection to nature, Greater sense of place, Stronger ties

with family and friends, Heightened sense of satisfaction with our community, and Reduced adverse human impacts

such as litter, vegetative trampling, and unplanned trails.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTIONS

Physical Characteristics: Majority of the area is on or near improved country roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from any

highways. Natural setting may have subtle modifications that would be noticed but not draw the attention of the

casual observer wandering through the area. Trails may exist but do not exceed standard and density to carry

expected use. Facilities and structures are rare and isolated.

Social Characteristics: Usually 3-6 encounters per day off travel routes and 7-15 encounters per day on travel

routes. Usually group size is small.

Operational Characteristics: Excluding county roads, adjacent housing development access roads, and livestock

permittee access to range improvements; the area will be managed for nonmotorized use. Onsite controls and

services are present, but harmonize with the natural environment.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Recreation and Visitor Services Program:

● Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, experiences,

and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

● Implement closures to motorized vehicle use; utilize administrative access agreements to allow for the

maintenance of range improvements.

● Mechanized use will be limited to designated roads and trails; these trails will be identified through the

environmental assessment process in consideration of recommendations from partners such as the state land

board, the grazing permittees, an established friends group or club, and other stakeholders or members of

the public.

● Facility and trail development will focus on sufficient densities and developments to provide for a 1⁄4 day

(2-4 hours) of use.

● Ensure targeted experiences and benefits as well as recreation setting information is included and explained in

all visitor information.

● Engage local sporting good businesses and other partners in the development and distribution of a brochure

and/or area guide book.

● Some onsite visitor orientation (kiosk and trail markers) will be developed.

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Lander Community Special Recreation Management

Area (Alternatives B and D) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1469

● This RMZ will be managed in a custodial fashion, until which time that a ‘friends group’ or local club

demonstrates a willingness to be involved in the management and stewardship of the site.

● A memorandum of understanding (MOU) will be developed between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

and pertinent partners such as the Wyoming State Land Board, livestock grazing permittees, local sporting good

retailers, and an established friends group or club.

● The MOU will assign responsibility for the stewardship and development of the site and related amenities; the

majority of cost and labor responsibilities associated with initial investments and maintenance of the identified

trails and related amenities will be born upon the established friends group or club.

● The BLM and other partners will provide matching contributions when funding and labor pool allows.

● Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: monitor outcome attainment and preferences through

customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies).

● Monitor recreation setting condition through onsite patrols May-November.

Other Programs:

● No Surface Occupancy for Oil and Gas Development (alternatives A, B, and D)

● Closed to Geothermal Development (alternatives A, B, and D)

● Closed to Geophysical Exploration (alternatives A, B, and D)

● Closed To Material Sales and Free Use Permits (alternatives A, B, and D)

● New rights-of-ways are excluded (alternatives B and D)

● Co-locate new rights-of-way whenever possible (Alternative A)

● Renewable Energy Development is excluded (alternatives B and D)

● Petition to withdrawal from entry under the 1872 Mining Law (Alternative B)

● Mineral entry requires a Plan of Operations (alternatives A and D)

● Closed to motorized vehicle use (alternatives B and D)

● Motorized use limited to designated roads (alternatives A and C)

● Mechanized use limited to designated roads and trails (Alternative B)

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation Decisions: (e.g., the land use plan decision may be to designate overnight camping areas while the

supporting implementation decisions would address specific site locations, size, and amenities to be provided.)

National Historic Trails Destination Special Recreation

Management Area (Alternatives B and D)

Table C.14. National Historic Trails Auto Tour Route Recreation Management Zone

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

This Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) is necessary to accommodate regional visitor demand for

destination oriented Congressionally Designated Trail opportunities in a safe and facility rich environment; this

demand has been identified by onsite customers, through community involvement workshops, visitor surveys, and

through the enabling legislation of the National Historic Trails. The area contains four Congressionally Designated

Trails including: Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, Pony Express, and California National Historic Trails. The area is

currently used for intensive motorized oriented interpretation/wayside exhibits and therefore has the infrastructure

and administrative support to accommodate this demand. SRMA management will maintain and enhance these

amenities.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

February 2013

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

National Historic Trails Destination Special

Recreation Management Area (Alternatives B and D)
1470 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The Auto Tour Route RMZ will be sustained or enhanced for highway travelers to engage in historic site

visitation/learning, teaching history, photography, and driving for pleasure so that participants in visitor

assessments/surveys indicate a higher than average (mean average of 4.0 on a 5 point scale) realization of experience

and benefit outcomes listed below:

Activities: Cultural site visitation, Learning cultural heritage, Teaching cultural heritage, Photography, and Driving

for pleasure.

Experiences: Enjoying the closeness of friends and family, Learning more about the cultural heritage here, Having

others nearby who could help you if needed, and Sharing Wyoming’s cultural heritage with new people.

Benefits: Enjoying easy access to cultural and historic sites, Stronger ties with family and friends, Increased

appreciation of the areas cultural history, Greater household awareness of and appreciation of our cultural heritage,

Greater protection of area historic structures and archeological sites, and Sustainability of community’s cultural

heritage, Increased local tax revenue from visitors.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTIONS

Physical Characteristics: Majority of the area is on or near primary highways, but still within a rural area. Natural

setting may have modifications that range from being easily noticed to strongly dominant to observers. These

alterations would remain visually subordinate from sensitive travel routes and use areas.

Paved, improved, and/or primitive roads/highways as well as nonmotorized trails dominate the landscape. Facilities

and structures are readily apparent and may range from scattered to small dominant clusters.

Social Characteristics: People seem to be everywhere, but human contact remains intermittent.

Operational Characteristics: Ordinary highway auto and truck traffic is characteristic. Controls and services

obvious and numerous. Largely harmonize with the man-made environment.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Recreation and Visitor Services Program:

● Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, experiences,

and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

● Work with partners and other agencies to continue maintenance of existing sites.

● Work with partner entities and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office to sustainably develop areas

where new sites are needed to deliver targeted outcomes.

● The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and partners will review (using the BLM's contrast rating system)

existing facilities and interpretive exhibits to ensure designs harmonize with the characteristic landscape;

designs out of character with the landscape will be modified so as not to overpower the landscape.

● Ensure targeted experiences and benefits as well as recreation setting information is included and explained in

all visitor information.

● Utilize promotion to focus the majority of trail orientated users into this RMZ.

● Partner with education institution or local museum to develop an interpretive plan to ensure existing

interpretation is accurate and delivers a consistent message.

● Coordinate with the National Park Service (NPS) to continue publishing “National Historic Trails Auto Tour

Route Interpretive Guide Across Wyoming.”

● Utilize promotion to tie this RMZ in with campground facilities in the Green Mountain Extensive Recreation

Management Area; as well as available amenities in the Fremont County area.

● Ensure promotion of the area reaches interested user segments by piggyback marketing the RMZ with NPS

marketing for Yellowstone National Park.

● Partner with National Historic Trails Center and other local museums to develop displays to demonstrate to

potential visitors the opportunities that are available within the RMZ and similar management RMZs within

the BLM Casper Field Office.

● The BLM will focus motorized trail orientated special recreation permits and trail interpretation in this RMZ.

● Additional administrative actions will be applied as needed to reduce unplanned visitor impacts (vandalism,

social trails, litter etc.).

● Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: monitor outcome attainment and preferences through

customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies), monitor recreation setting condition through

onsite patrols June-September.

Other Programs:

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

National Historic Trails Destination Special

Recreation Management Area (Alternatives B and D) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1471

● The SRMA will be managed as a Class II Visual Resource.

● Additional Allowable Use Decisions for the National Historic and Scenic Trails are contained in Table 2.33,

“7000 Special Designations (SD) – Congressionally Designated Trails” (p. 191).

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation Decisions: (e.g., the land use plan decision may be to designate overnight camping areas while the

supporting implementation decisions would address specific site locations, size, and amenities to be provided.)

Table C.15. Group Use Recreation Management Zone

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

This Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) is necessary to accommodate regional visitor demand for

destination oriented Congressionally Designated Trail reenactment opportunities in semi-arid sagebrush step

regions; this demand has been identified by onsite customers, through community involvement workshops, visitor

surveys, and through the enabling legislation of the National Historic Trails. The area contains four Congressionally

Designated Trails including: Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, Pony Express, and California National Historic Trails. The

area is currently used for intensive nonmotorized reenactments and therefore has the infrastructure and administrative

support to accommodate this demand. SRMA management will maintain and enhance these amenities.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

The Group Reenactment RMZ of the National Historic Trails Destination SRMA will be sustained or enhanced for

organized groups and other trail enthusiasts to engage in physically demanding cultural site visitation/learning,

photography, and historic reenactments, so that participants in visitor assessments/surveys indicate a higher than

average (mean average of 4.0 on a 5 point scale) realization of experience and benefit outcomes listed below:

Activities: Cultural site visitation, Learning cultural heritage, Teaching cultural heritage, Photography, and Historic

reenactment.

Experiences: Develop personal and spiritual values, Reflect on personal values, Gaining an experience I can

look back on, and Teach and learn about history here.

Benefits: Increased opportunities for youth, Greater spiritual growth, Greater appreciation of cultural histories,

Increased understanding of history, Stronger ties with family and friends, Greater household awareness of and

appreciation of our cultural heritage, Protection of cultural sites, Maintenance of distinctive historical recreation

setting, and Reduced human impacts such as: litter, vegetation trampling, and unplanned trails.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTIONS

Physical Characteristics: The majority of this route is on or near 4-wheel drive roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from all

improved roads, though they may be in sight. Natural setting may have subtle modifications that would be noticed,

but not draw the attention of an observer wandering through the area. Primitive motorized routes and nonmotorized

trails may exist, facilities and structures are rare and often accessible via unimproved routes.

Social Characteristics: Average group size and encounters per day are detailed in the 2005 Finding of No

Significant Impact/Decision Record for Handcart Trekking.

Operational Characteristics: 4-wheel drive vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or over-snow vehicles in

addition to nonmotorized mechanized use when the trail is on existing roads. Motorized vehicles are not allowed on

Rocky Ridge. Vehicle use on the National Historic Trail in support of Special Recreation Permits will be limited.

Onsite controls and services are low; primarily offsite. Minimum amount necessary to achieve planning objectives.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

February 2013

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

National Historic Trails Destination Special

Recreation Management Area (Alternatives B and D)
1472 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Recreation and Visitor Services Program:

● Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, experiences,

and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

● Permanently close trail section over Rocky Ridge to motorized use.

● Motorized and mechanized travel in the remainder of the SRMA will be limited to existing roads and trails.

● The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and partners (State Historic Preservation Office and National Park

Service) will review (using the BLM's contrast rating system) interpretive exhibits to ensure designs harmonize

with the characteristic landscape; designs out of character with the landscape will be modified so as not to

overpower the landscape.

● Group use in the area is directed and managed through the 2005 Finding of No Significant Impact/Decision

Record for Handcart Trekking.

● No competitive events will be authorized in this RMZ.

● Additional administrative actions will be applied as needed to reduce unplanned visitor impacts (vandalism,

social trails, litter etc.).

● Ensure targeted experiences and benefits as well as recreation setting information is included and explained in

all visitor information.

● Utilize promotion to educate users on the physically demanding nature of this RMZ.

● Partner with education institution or local museum to develop an interpretive plan to ensure existing

interpretation is accurate and delivers a consistent message.

● Review all interpretation to ensure all site-specific stories are told (Oregon Trail, Pony Express, etc.).

● Provide replacement/offsite interpretation opportunities for visitors physically unable to access motorized

vehicle closure of Rocky Ridge, this site may be an interpretation panel or set of panels overlooking Rocky

Ridge in close proximity to an improved motorized route.

● Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: monitor outcome attainment and preferences through

customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies), monitor recreation setting condition through

onsite patrols June-September.

● With stakeholder involvement, apply Limits of Acceptable Change to ensure protection of the Historic Trail

Resource. Limits of Acceptable Change focuses on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluatingadjusting actions to respond to future recreation issues and the results of monitoring.

Other Programs:

● The SRMA will be managed as a Class II Visual Resource.

● Additional Allowable Use Decisions for the National Historic and Scenic Trails are contained in Table 2.33,

“7000 Special Designations (SD) – Congressionally Designated Trails” (p. 191).

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation Decisions: (e.g., the land use plan decision may be to designate overnight camping areas while the

supporting implementation decisions would address specific site locations, size, and amenities to be provided.)

Sweetwater Canyon Undeveloped Special Recreation

Management Area (Alternatives B and D)

Table C.16. Sweetwater Canyon Recreation Management Zone

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

This Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) is necessary to accommodate local visitor demand for

undeveloped/back country opportunities in semi-arid sagebrush step regions; this demand has been identified by

onsite customers and through community involvement workshops. The canyon waterway is a designated Wilderness

Study Area (WSA) and considered for inclusion as a Wild and Scenic River. The area also provides spectacular

scenic canyon walls, numerous wildlife species, high quality trout fishing, and opportunities for solitude. SRMA

management will sustain and enhance these amenities as well as accommodate the visitor demand.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Sweetwater Canyon Undeveloped Special Recreation

Management Area (Alternatives B and D) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1473

The Sweetwater Canyon Undeveloped SRMA will be sustained or enhanced for back country enthusiasts to engage

in hiking, backpacking, fishing, horseback riding, hunting, and wildlife viewing so that participants in visitor

assessments/surveys report a higher than average (mean average of 4.0 on a 5 point scale) realization of experience

and benefit outcomes listed below:

Activities: Hiking/backpacking, Horseback riding, Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife viewing.

Experiences: Enjoying the sensory experience of a natural landscape, Feeling good about solitude, Being isolated

and independent, and Enjoying an escape from crowds of people.

Benefits: Enhanced awareness and understanding of nature, Improved appreciation of nature, Greater connection

to nature, Improved opportunity to view wildlife close up, Better understanding of wildlife’s contribution to my

quality of life, Greater sense of place, Reduced human impacts such as litter, vegetative trampling, and unplanned

trails, Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes, Enhanced ability for visitors and residents to

find areas providing desired recreation experiences and benefits, and Maintenance of community’s distinctive

recreation tourism market.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTIONS

Physical Characteristics: Implement motorized vehicle closures to enhance back country setting. Essentially an

unmodified natural environment. Evidence of humans is unnoticed by an observer wandering through the area.

Trails may exist but do not exceed standard to carry expected use. Facility and structures are extremely rare, and are

located in disturbed (e.g., roaded or front country) areas.

Social Characteristics: Usually 3-6 encounters per day off travel routes (e.g., campsites) and 7-15 encounters

per day on travel routes. Usual group size is small.

Operational Characteristics: Access to this area utilizes routes identified as open for 4-wheel drive vehicles,

all-terrain vehicles, or dirt bikes, in addition to nonmotorized mechanized routes. A large portion of this area (WSA

and inaccessible portions) does not provide for any motorized or mechanized use. Onsite controls and services are

low; primarily offsite. Minimum amount necessary to achieve planning objectives.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Recreation and Visitor Services Program:

● Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, experiences,

and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

● Implement route closures within the WSA to motorized and mechanized vehicles.

●

● The WSA will be closed to organized group and competitive event Special Recreation Permits.

● Other Special Recreation Permits will be limited as necessary to reach and maintain desired future setting

condition

● A foot/horseback trail may eventually need to be developed or identified (from existing trails within the area)

to ensure resource protection. Additional trails may also be added to connect the main trail to additionally

identified access points.

● Ensure targeted experiences and benefits as well as recreation setting information is included and explained in

all visitor information.

● Engage local sporting good businesses and other partners to ensure promotional material does not over advertise

the area.

● Some onsite visitor orientation (kiosk and signs) may be developed.

● Consider the use of a memorandum of understanding or other cooperative agreement between the Bureau of

Land Management and pertinent partners to maintain and enhance this areas unique natural setting.

● Work with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and other interested entities to maintain and enhance

terrestrial and aquatic habitat in the area.

● Solicit partnerships to ensure adequate maintenance of the areas signs and fences.

● Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: monitor outcome attainment and preferences through

customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies).

● Monitor recreation setting condition through onsite patrols.

Other Programs:

● The WSA is managed under BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas

● The WSA is managed as a Class I Visual Resource (all alternatives)

● Closed to Livestock Grazing (Alternative B)

● Closed to Motorized and Mechanized Travel (Alternative B)

February 2013

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Sweetwater Canyon Undeveloped Special Recreation

Management Area (Alternatives B and D)
1474 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation Decisions: (e.g., the land use plan decision may be to designate overnight camping areas while the

supporting implementation decisions would address specific site locations, size, and amenities to be provided.)

Sweetwater Rocks Undeveloped Special Recreation Management

Area (Alternatives B and D)

Table C.17. Sweetwater Rocks Recreation Management Zone

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

This Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) is necessary to accommodate local visitor demand for

undeveloped/back country opportunities in semi-arid sagebrush step regions; this demand has been identified by

onsite customers and through community involvement workshops. The Sweetwater Rocks contain 4 designated

Wilderness Study Area (WSA). The area also provides spectacular scenic granite formations, numerous wildlife

species, high quality climbing, and opportunities for solitude. SRMA management will sustain and enhance these

amenities as well as accommodate the visitor demand.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

The Sweetwater Rocks Undeveloped SRMA will be sustained or enhanced for back country enthusiasts to engage

in hiking, backpacking, climbing, horseback riding, hunting, and wildlife viewing, so that participants in visitor

assessments/surveys report a higher than average (mean average of 4.0 on a 5 point scale) realization of experience

and benefit outcomes below:

Activities: Climbing, Hiking/backpacking, Horseback riding, Hunting, and Wildlife viewing.

Experiences: Developing skills and abilities, Enjoying having access to hands on environmental learning, Enjoying

the sensory experience of a natural landscape, Feeling good about solitude, being isolated and independent, and

Enjoying teaching others about the outdoors.

Benefits: Improved leadership abilities, Improved outdoor knowledge and self confidence, Enhanced awareness and

understanding of nature, Improved appreciation of nature, Greater connection to nature, Improved opportunity to

view wildlife close up, Greater respect for private property and local lifestyles, Greater sense of place, Improved

outdoor recreation skills, Reduced human impacts such as litter, vegetative trampling, and unplanned trails,

Improved respect for privately owned lands, Increased awareness and protection of natural landscapes, Enhanced

ability for visitors and residents to find areas providing desired recreation experiences and benefits, Maintenance of

community’s distinctive recreation tourism market, and Greater value added service industry.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTIONS

Physical Characteristics: Implement motorized vehicle closures to enhance back country setting. Essentially an

unmodified natural environment. Evidence of humans is unnoticed by an observer wandering through the area.

Trails may exist but do not exceed standard to carry expected use. Facility and structures are extremely rare, and are

located in disturbed (e.g., roaded or front country) areas.

Social Characteristics: Usually 3-6 encounters per day off travel routes (e.g., campsites) and 7-15 encounters

per day on travel routes. Usual group size is small.

Operational Characteristics: Access to this area utilizes routes identified as open for 4-wheel drive vehicles,

all-terrain vehicles, or dirt bikes, in addition to nonmotorized mechanized routes. A large portion of this area (WSAs

and inaccessible portions) do not allow for any mechanized use. Onsite controls and services are low; primarily

offsite. Minimum amount necessary to achieve planning objectives.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Sweetwater Rocks Undeveloped Special Recreation

Management Area (Alternatives B and D) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1475

Recreation and Visitor Services Program:

● Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, experiences,

and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

● Implement route closures within the WSA to motorized and mechanized vehicles

● The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will work with local landowners, the Access Fund, Friends of

Sweetwater Rocks, local sporting goods retailers, and the National Outdoor Leadership School to pursue land

trades, acquisitions or easement in and around this RMZ to facilitate better nonmotorized access.

● Partners will also emphasized the importance of: getting landowner permission before crossing any and all

private lands, abiding by Wyoming State land restrictions on overnight camping, and increasing understanding

of land ownership patterns in the area.

● Ensure targeted experiences and benefits as well as recreation setting information is included and explained in

all visitor information.

● Engage local sporting good businesses and other partners to ensure promotional material does not over advertise

the area.

● Some onsite visitor orientation (kiosk and signs) may be developed.

● A memorandum of understanding (MOU) will be developed between the BLM and willing/pertinent partners

such livestock grazing permittees, local sporting good retailers, the friends of Sweetwater Rocks, the National

Outdoor Leadership School, the Wyoming State Land Board, the Access Fund, the Nature Conservancy, and

private landowners.

● The MOU will emphasize the desires to maintain this areas unique natural setting while also ensuring protection

of private property rights. The BLM will work cooperatively with all partners to pursue improved nonmotorized

access.

● Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: monitor outcome attainment and preferences through

customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies).

● Monitor recreation setting condition through onsite patrols.

Other Programs:

● All WSAs are managed consistent with BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas

● Manage as a Class 1 Visual Resource

● Closed to motorized and mechanized vehicles in the WSA (Alternative B)

● Detailed management of the area outside of the WSA is detailed in Table 2.32, “6000 Land Resources (LR)

– Recreation” (p. 178).

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation Decisions: (e.g., the land use plan decision may be to designate overnight camping areas while the

supporting implementation decisions would address specific site locations, size, and amenities to be provided.)

February 2013

Appendix C Recreation Management Area Forms

Sweetwater Rocks Undeveloped Special Recreation

Management Area (Alternatives B and D)
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1477

Appendix D. Reclamation Objectives and

Standards

Reclamation will be required for any surface-disturbing activity occurring on public lands. A

reclamation plan appropriate in detail and complexity and tailored to a specific surface-disturbing

activity will be required for this activity. This appendix details the reclamation objectives and

standards necessary to achieve a timely and proper recovery according to management objects of

the disturbed site and is consistent with the Wyoming Reclamation Policy.

The reclamation plan will provide comprehensive as well as detailed site-specific reclamation

procedures, methods and actions to successfully meet the objectives and standards for any surface

disturbance. The reclamation plan will also include sufficient monitoring requirements and

reports to ensure reclamation success has been accomplished. Site-specific reclamation plans will

identify the dominant Ecological Site Descriptions, referenced plant communities, and soil map

units. The approved reclamation plan must adhere to federal, state and local requirements, which

can be used by regulatory agencies in their oversight roles to ensure that the reclamation measures

are implemented, are appropriate for the site, meet area resource objectives (such as for wildlife,

including greater sage-grouse), and are ecologically functional.

Limited Reclamation Potential (LRP) areas as identified in the LRP Map (Map 11) will require

site-specific measures in the reclamation plan and will address the critical characteristics

associated with these sites. These critical characteristics include but are not limited to soil

erosivity, chemical and physical soil restrictive characteristics, steep slopes, and inadequate

affective precipitation.

Project level reclamation objectives and standards will be established prior to disturbance and

must be consistent with the objective set forth. The objectives and standards may be modified by

the Authorized Officer if site-specific situations are deemed necessary to meet the overall land

management objectives. To ensure objectives are being met, they will identify metrics, with

triggers such as plant composition, percent cover, or other site-specific factors. Reclamation

objectives are as follows:

● The objective of interim reclamation in the Designated Development Areas (DDAs)

is to rehabilitate disturbed sites during the interim phase of development to achieve

landscape continuity, minimize non-designated invasive species, and stabilize the soil.

Interim reclamation will emphasize native plant species and will be designed to minimize

re-disturbance during final reclamation activities and to initiate and accelerate ecological

succession.

● Nonnative plants are permissible only as an approved short-term and non-persistent alternative

to native plant materials. Nonnatives will not hybridize, displace, or offer long-term

competition to the endemic plants, and are designed to aid in the reestablishment of native

plant communities.

● The objective of interim reclamation in non-DDAs is to rehabilitate disturbed sites during

the interim phase of development to achieve landscape continuity, minimize non-designated

invasive species, and stabilize the soil and to promote a diversified plant community with the

end result of accelerating the vegetative successional process to meet wildlife habitat goals.

Interim reclamation will emphasize native plant species and will be designed to minimize

February 2013 Appendix D Reclamation Objectives and Standards
1478 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

re-disturbance during final reclamation activities and to initiate and accelerate ecological

succession.

● The objective of final reclamation in DDAs is to rehabilitate disturbed sites to achieve

landscape continuity, minimize non-designated invasive species, and provide for a stabilized

ecologically diverse plant community. Final reclamation is successful when a state of

ecological progressive succession is achieved which can eventually advance to full ecosystem

restoration.

● The objective of final reclamation in the non-DDAs is to reclaim disturbed sites to achieve

landscape continuity, minimize non-designated invasive species, and provide for a stabilized

ecologically diverse plant community, which will support approximately similar composition

and density of organisms that were originally present. Final reclamation is successful when

a state of ecological progressive succession is achieved which can eventually advance to

full ecosystem restoration.

● During predisturbance onsites, the Natural Resources Conservation Service Ecological Site

Descriptions will be determined, and the operator may explain why a Vegetation Reference

Area might be more appropriate for use than the Ecological Site Descriptions, and whether

a return to baseline condition is appropriate. The reclamation standard to be applied in

determining if interim or final reclamation has been achieved will be part of the National

Environmental Policy Act analysis of the action, and the Vegetation Reference Area will be

part of at least one alternative analyzed, if requested by the operator.

Interim Reclamation Standards for Designated Development Areas

Reclamation will be considered successful 3 years after seeding if the following criteria are met:

Site Characteristics Standards

Percent Ground Cover 80 percent of the Erosion indicator as listed on NRCS Reference Sheet for

Ecological Site is met

Plant Species Composition (by

weight)

● At least 65 percent total plant species must be from major grasses, forbs

and/or shrubs listed in the Ecological Site Desired Plant Community

and/or BLM authorized plant species from seeding mix

● No greater than 15 percent of the total reclaimed disturbance will be

composed of non-designated invasive species

● No greater than 35 percent of a 500 square foot contiguous area within

a reclaimed disturbance will be composed of non-designated invasive

species

● No designated federal and state invasive plant species present

Site Stability, Erosion Potential, and

other Variables

Meet NRCS Reference Sheet Indicators for Ecological Site with the

following exceptions:

● Soil Surface Structure and Soil Organic Matter content

● Average Percent of Litter Cover and Depth

● Expected Annual Production

● Functional/Structural Groups

BLM Bureau of Land Management

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

Appendix D Reclamation Objectives and Standards February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1479

Interim Reclamation Standards for non-Designated Development Areas

Reclamation will be considered successful 5 years after seeding if the following criteria are met:

Site Characteristics Standards

Percent Ground Cover At least 90 percent of the Erosion indicator as listed on NRCS Reference

Sheet for Ecological Site is met

Plant Species Composition (by

weight)

● At least 75 percent total plant species must be from major grasses, forbs

and shrubs listed in the Ecological Site Desired Plant Community and/or

BLM authorized plant species from seed mix

● At least 5 percent of the total plant species must be woody plants as listed

in the Ecological Site Desired Plant Community

● At least 5 percent of the total plant species must be forbs as listed in the

Ecological Site Desired Plant Community

● No greater than 15 percent of the total reclaimed disturbance will be

composed of non-designated invasive species

● No greater than 35 percent of a 500 square foot contiguous area within

a reclaimed disturbance will be composed of non-designated invasive

species

● No designated federal and state invasive plant species present

Site Stability, Erosion Potential, and

other Variables

Meet NRCS Reference Sheet Indicators for Ecological Site with the

following exceptions:

● Soil Surface Structure and Soil Organic Matter content

● Average Percent of Litter Cover and Depth

● Expected Annual Production

● Functional/Structural Groups

BLM Bureau of Land Management

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

Final Reclamation Standards for Designated Development Areas

Reclamation will be considered successful after receipt of project abandonment if the following criteria are met:

Site Characteristics Standards

Percent Ground Cover 90 percent of the Erosion indicator as listed on NRCS Reference Sheet for

Ecological Site is met

Plant Species Composition (by

weight)

● At least 80 percent total plant species must be from major grasses, forbs

and/or shrubs listed in the Ecological Site Desired Plant Community

and/or BLM authorized plant species from seeding mix

● At least 5 percent of the total plant species must be woody plants as listed

in the Ecological Site Desired Plant Community

● At least 5 percent of the total plant species must be forbs as listed in the

Ecological Site Desired Plant Community

● No greater than 10 percent of the total reclaimed disturbance will be

composed of non-designated invasive species

● No greater than 25 percent of a 500 square foot contiguous area within

a reclaimed disturbance will be composed of non-designated invasive

species

● No designated federal and state invasive plant species present

Site Stability, Erosion Potential, and

other Variables

Meet NRCS Reference Sheet Indicators for Ecological Site with the

following exceptions:

● Soil Surface Structure and Soil Organic Matter content

● Average Percent of Litter Cover and Depth

● Expected Annual Production

● Functional/Structural Groups

BLM Bureau of Land Management

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

February 2013 Appendix D Reclamation Objectives and Standards
1480 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Final Reclamation Standards for non-Designated Development Areas

Reclamation will be considered successful after receipt of project abandonment if the following criteria are met:

Site Characteristics Standards

Percent Ground Cover 100 percent of the Erosion indicator as listed on NRCS Reference Sheet for

Ecological Site is met

Plant Species Composition (by

weight)

● At least 85 percent of total plant species must be from dominate grasses,

forbs and woody plants listed in the Ecological Site Desired Plant

Community and/or BLM authorized plant species from seed mix

● All major grasses must be present

● Major woody plant species will meet minimum percentage and/or total

woody plants present will meet minimum percentage of growth form

characteristics listed in the Ecological Site Desired Plant Community.

● At least 3 of the listed forb must be present and at least 5 percent of the

total plant species must be forbs as listed in the Ecological Site Desired

Plant Community

● No greater than 5 percent of the total reclaimed disturbance will be

composed of non-designated invasive species

● No greater than 15 percent of a 500 square foot contiguous area within

a reclaimed disturbance will be composed of non-designated invasive

species

● No designated federal and state invasive plant species present

Site Stability, Erosion Potential, and

other Variables

Meet NRCS Reference Sheet Indicators for Ecological Site with the

following exceptions:

● Soil Surface Structure and Soil Organic Matter content

● Average Percent of Litter Cover and Depth

● Expected Annual Production

● Functional/Structural Groups

BLM Bureau of Land Management

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

Monitoring of reclaimed areas will be required and will ensure reclamation standards have been

met. Reclaimed areas will be monitored annually by project proponent or BLM personnel if

designated in the reclamation plan. Reclamation monitoring protocol will be included in the

reclamation plan as approved by BLM.

Reclamation monitoring will be documented in an annual reclamation report submitted to the

Authorized Officer by December 31 of each year after one full growing season following seeding.

The report will document all aspects of the following:

● The 10 requirements of the Wyoming Reclamation Plan;

● The requirements of the Resource Management Plan reclamation objectives and standards;

● Requirements of the Onshore Oil and Gas Orders;

● Identify whether the reclamation objectives and standards are likely to be achieved in the

near future without additional actions; and

● Identify actions that have been or will be taken to meet the objectives and standards.

The report will also include acreage figures for the following:

● Initial disturbed acres;

● Successful Interim Reclaimed Acres; and/or

● Successful Final Reclaimed Acres.

Annual reports will not be submitted for approval by the Authorized Officer as having fully met

interim or final reclamation standards. Any time 15 percent or more of an interim reclaimed area

is re-disturbed, monitoring will be reinitiated. Actions will be taken to ensure that reclamation

Appendix D Reclamation Objectives and Standards February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1481

standards are met as quickly as reasonably practical. The Authorized Officer will be notified

in a separate document by the project proponent when the reclamation operations have been

completed that indicate the site meets reclamation standards and is ready for final inspection.

February 2013 Appendix D Reclamation Objectives and Standards
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1483

Appendix E. Exception, Modification,

and Waiver Criteria, Avoidance Criteria,

and Special Management for Designated

Corridors

E.1. Introduction

This appendix addresses the procedure for providing exceptions, modifications, and waivers of

stipulations or Conditions of Approval (COAs) placed on oil and gas leases and other surface

disturbance and disruptive activity authorizations, and avoidance criteria for rights-of-way

(ROWs), to protect resource values identified in Chapter 3. These values generally include

wildlife, soil, water, recreation, visual, and cultural resources. Criteria applicable to designated

corridors are provided.

Oil and Gas

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) may apply stipulations or COAs identified in the

Standard Oil and Gas Stipulations (Appendix N (p. 1601)) and the Wyoming BLM Mitigation

Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (Appendix M (p. 1595)). Oil and gas

leases will have applicable stipulations attached at the leasing stage. For surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities occurring within Designated Development Areas (DDAs), stipulations will be

reviewed during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and will not be applied

unless required to follow federal laws and policies or the BLM identifies a site-specific real-time

need for the stipulation. Review of requests for exception within DDAs will be expedited. Refer

to Appendix I (p. 1535) for the application of stipulations or COAs inside and outside of DDAs.

The three types of surface stipulations the BLM applies are (1) no surface occupancy (NSO), (2)

timing limitation stipulation (TLS), and (3) controlled surface use (CSU). The surface stipulations

are defined below.

● No Surface Occupancy: Areas closed to placement of surface facilities such as roads, oil

and gas wells, and other facilities. This stipulation may be applied to oil and gas leases

only before a lease is issued.

● Timing Limitation Stipulation: Areas closed to construction and development activities

during identified timeframes. The alternatives vary in the application of TLSs to maintenance

activities, including associated vehicle travel, during the closed period unless otherwise

specified in the stipulation.

● Controlled Surface Use: Areas where surface uses are subject to specified controls or

constraints.

The BLM cannot apply an NSO stipulation after oil and gas lease issuance, but can apply TLS

and CSU restrictions as COAs after the oil and gas lease has been issued.

An applicant can request an exception, modification, or waiver of a NSO, TLS, or CSU stipulation

or a COA. This document identifies the criteria that the BLM would utilize in making the

February 2013

Appendix E Exception, Modification, and Waiver

Criteria, Avoidance Criteria, and Special

Management for Designated Corridors
1484 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

determination to except, modify, or waive the stipulation or COA. The Resource Management

Plan (RMP) serves as the vehicle for providing analysis of the conditions under which waivers,

exceptions, or modifications of lease stipulations or COAs may be granted.

A request for exception must be initiated in writing before the time that the work was originally

proposed to conclude. The unpredictability of weather, animal movement and condition, etc.,

precludes analysis of requests related to wildlife far in advance of the time periods in question.

However, where possible, the applicant should seek the exception at least two-weeks in advance.

Analyses of a request include review of potential mitigation measures and alternatives (e.g., traffic

restrictions, alternative scheduling, and staged activity). The request is considered as a unique

action and is analyzed and documented individually for RMP and NEPA compliance.

Exception requests will not be granted for stipulations or operating standards designed to protect

threatened and endangered species, unless the BLM consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) and reinitiates consultation, if appropriate.

E.2. Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers

An applicant may request an exception, modification, or waiver of a stipulation or restriction

included in a lease or applied as a COA, as defined below.

● Exception: A one-time exemption to a lease stipulation or COA determined on a case-by-case

basis.

● Modification: A change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for

the term of the lease.

● Waiver: A permanent exemption to a lease stipulation.

The person requesting the exception, modification, or waiver is encouraged to submit information

that might assist the authorized official in making a decision. The Authorized Officer reviews

information submitted in support of the request and other pertinent information. The Authorized

Officer may modify, waive, or grant an exception to a stipulation if:

● The action is consistent with federal laws.

● The action is consistent with the RMP.

● The management objectives that led the BLM to require the lease stipulation can be met

without restricting operations in the manner provided for by the stipulation given changes in

the condition.

● The action and the impacts that would result are acceptable to the Authorized Officer based on

a review of the environmental consequences.

E.3. Standard Exception

An exception may be granted by the Authorized Officer if it can be demonstrated that the

ground-disturbing activity/lease stipulation would not cause adverse impacts to the targeted

resource, condition, or public interest as defined by RMP objectives, standards, or conditions and:

1. is intended to improve the targeted resource, condition, or public interest (e.g., vegetation

treatment in a NSO area to improve wildlife habitat, trail construction in a NSO/CSU area for

a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) to improve recreational opportunities), or

Appendix E Exception, Modification, and Waiver

Criteria, Avoidance Criteria, and Special

Management for Designated Corridors

Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1485

2. the ground-disturbing activity (mentioned above), by its nature, must be done within the

targeted NSO/CSU area (e.g., spring development within a NSO area for riparian-wetland

vegetation, installation of brook trout stream barrier in a NSO area for cutthroat trout, or

short duration road maintenance).

In situations where a ground-disturbing activity/lease stipulation is excepted, the activity

could be subject to additional COAs, reclamation measures, or best management practices.

Measures applied will be based on the nature, extent, and values potentially affected by the

ground-disturbing activity. Excepted ground-disturbing activities/lease stipulations are given on a

one-time case-by-case basis and would not necessarily constitute subsequent approvals.

E.4. Resource Specific Exceptions

E.4.1. Wildlife

Activities within the planning area are managed with stipulations or COAs to protect important

times of the year and habitats for wildlife. A NSO or CSU stipulation may be placed on oil and

gas leases to protect greater sage-grouse breeding areas or habitat for other special status species

from surface-disturbing activities. TLSs or COAs may be used to protect wintering or birthing

big game, nesting greater sage-grouse, raptor, mountain plovers, or spawning trout. Application

of TLSs to maintenance and operation of a developed project varies by alternative. Protective

wildlife seasonal restrictions are developed consistent with statewide dates and in coordination

with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) and/or the USFWS.

The BLM may grant exceptions to seasonal restrictions if the BLM determines that granting an

exception would not jeopardize the wildlife population being protected. The BLM uses a set of

factors when considering a request for an exception. The professional judgment of the BLM and

the wildlife agencies play a key part in the BLM’s decisions on whether to grant exceptions.

No clear-cut formula exists.

The following section describes some of the factors considered by the BLM when determining

whether a request for an exception to wildlife seasonal stipulations or COAs should be granted.

1. Resource Concern

● Animal presence or absence

● Additional or new resource concerns

● Potential for increased wildlife accidents or poaching

2. Animal Conditions

● Physical condition of individual animals (e.g., fat reserves)

● Local animal population condition (animal density)

● Potential for additive mortality

● Likelihood of introduction or increased incidence of disease

● Likelihood of decreased recruitment/natality

3. Climate/Weather

● Snow conditions (depth, crusting, and longevity)

● Current and historic local precipitation patterns

● Current and historical seasonal weather patterns

● Recent and current wind-chill factors (indication of animals’ energy use)

February 2013

Appendix E Exception, Modification, and Waiver

Criteria, Avoidance Criteria, and Special

Management for Designated Corridors

Resource Specific Exceptions
1486 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Duration of condition

● Short- and long-range forecasts

4. Habitat Condition and Availability

● Water and forage condition (availability, quality, and quantity)

● Competition (interspecific, intraspecific)

● Animal use of available forage

● Suitable and ample forage immediately available and accessible

5. Spatial Considerations

● Migration/travel corridors

● Winter range, foraging, parturition or breeding

● Topography (plains vs. mountains)

● Topographic/geographic limitations (barriers)

● Presence of thermal cover (e.g., protection from wind)

● Proportion of range impacted

● Juxtaposition and density of other activities/disturbances in the vicinity

● Cumulative impacts

6. Timing

● When proposed activity would occur in the stipulation period

● Kind and duration of potentially disruptive activity

● Likelihood of animals habituating to the proposed activity

E.4.2. Cultural Resources

The areas around and including special Sacred, Spiritual and/or Traditional Cultural Properties

such as Castle Gardens (called “restriction zones”) are managed with surface occupancy and

disturbance stipulations which vary by alternative. The BLM may grant exceptions to these

stipulations subject to Standard Protocol and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

measures. The BLM would consult with affected tribes to ascertain their opinion on the proposal.

The BLM would follow the tribes’ opinion regarding restriction zone activities in all but the

most extraordinary circumstances.

E.4.3. Oil and Gas Actions

Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3101.1-4 establishes procedures for granting

modifications or waivers to oil and gas lease stipulations, as stated below:

A stipulation included in an oil and gas lease shall be subject to modification or

waiver only if the Authorized Officer determines that the factors leading to its

inclusion in the lease have changed sufficiently to make the protection provided

by the stipulation no longer justified or if proposed operations would not cause

unacceptable impacts. If the Authorized Officer has determined, prior to lease

issuance, that a stipulation involves an issue of major concern to the public,

modification or waiver of the stipulation shall be subject to public review for

at least a 30-day period. In such cases, the stipulation shall indicate that public

review is required before modification or waiver. If subsequent to lease issuance

the Authorized Officer determines that a modification or waiver of a lease term

Appendix E Exception, Modification, and Waiver

Criteria, Avoidance Criteria, and Special

Management for Designated Corridors

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1487

or stipulation is substantial, the modification or waiver shall be subject to public

review for at least a 30-day period.

The modification or waiver of an oil and gas lease stipulation implies that the sensitive resource

for which the protective measure was considered is in some way not present in the area or

in some way no longer in need of the protective measure. In either case, consideration of a

modification or waiver of a lease stipulation would require environmental analysis and may

result in an amendment to the land use plan.

E.5. Procedures for Exceptions

Requests for exceptions may, in general, be made at any time. In the case of seasonal restrictions

for the benefit of wildlife, the request should be made within 2 weeks of conducting the proposed

work. The unpredictability of weather, animal movement and condition, precludes analysis of

requests related to wildlife concerns far in advance of the time periods in question. The request is

considered as a unique action and is analyzed and documented individually for RMP and NEPA

compliance. The request must include the following information:

WHY the public land user needs the exception. Include the reason(s) why the action could not

be completed within the original stipulation period, any evidence of why the action would not

adversely affect the resource or species being protected, or any other information (additional

mitigation measures or alternatives) that would help the BLM (and WGFD or USFWS) in

reviewing the request.

WHO is filing the exception request. This must include the company name, the name of the

contact person, and the address, telephone number, e-mail address (if available), and fax number

of the contact person.

WHAT is being requested. This must include a detailed description of the activity including

types of equipment or vehicles required and the number of trips expected. Please include the

name and/or number of the authorization (i.e., application for permit to drill, sundry, ROW) and

the affected stipulation/restriction.

WHERE the activity would take place. This must include the legal description of the activity, the

location of the access roads and pipelines, and a map clearly depicting these areas. Proponent

prepared Geographic Information System layers meeting BLM requirements will expedite the

processing.

WHEN the activity would occur. This must include the start date, end date, and time of day/night

when activities would occur.

Requests must be made in writing and hard copy delivered to the Lander Field Manager at the

physical address of the office. When time is of the essence, the process may be initiated by

fax or electronic delivery of a scanned copy but the original must be received by the Lander

Field Office within 3 working days. No exception, waiver, or modification will be issued until

the hard copy request is received.

BLM may consider verbal requests for and grant verbal approvals of exceptions in DDAs.

However, the operator must submit a written notice within 7 days after the verbal request. A

verbal request is considered a unique action and should be used only if serious economic or public

health and safety problems could result from denial of the request.

February 2013

Appendix E Exception, Modification, and Waiver

Criteria, Avoidance Criteria, and Special

Management for Designated Corridors

Procedures for Exceptions
1488 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Exceptions will not be granted for stipulations or COAs resulting from Section 7 consultation

regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with the USFWS for listed species unless a

biological assessment (BA) is completed and reinitiation of Section 7 consultation occurs. This

process, depending on the potential impacts and whether incidental take is involved, typically

requires 3 to 6 months for completion. The operator or lease holder is responsible for the BA,

which must be satisfactorily completed in accordance with the requirements of the BLM.

E.6. Rights-of-Way

Vegetation Criteria Considered for Projects Proposed in Right-of-Way Avoidance Areas

Projects proposed for construction in avoidance areas will be considered on a case-by-case basis

and must incorporate site-specific mitigation measures aimed at addressing resource concerns on

the site. Exceptions may be granted in avoidance areas if the following criteria are met (this list

is not all-inclusive):

● ROW proposals that are co-located with existing disturbances where little to no vegetation

disturbance is anticipated.

● Slopes of less than 8 percent or, pitch grades above 8 percent of less than 300 feet. Projects

that will be constructed on slopes (including pitch grades) in excess of 8 percent must be

accompanied by specific stabilization measures for these grades incorporated into the project

reclamation plan prior to approval. The use of cover crops is acceptable for stabilization

provided that the species utilized meets the Wyoming Reclamation Policy and will ultimately

result in compliance with the Reclamation Objectives and Standards identified in Appendix

D (p. 1477) of the RMP.

● Soil depths of less than 20 inches to the restrictive layer may be considered on a case-by-case

basis contingent on the slope, soil chemistry, and erosion potential being adequate to support

successful reclamation on the site.

● Soils with low to moderate wind and water erosion potential may be considered. Projects

proposed on soils with high wind and water erosion potential may only be considered where

topography and cover are adequate to support successful reclamation on the site.

● Prior to ROW approval, the proposed site must be inventoried for the presence of threatened,

endangered, and special status plant species. Where populations of threatened, endangered,

and special status plant species will be adversely impacted, the ROW proposal shall be denied.

● Prior to ROW approval, the proposed site must be inventoried for the presence of invasive,

noxious, and nonnative species.

● All invasive plant species must be treated (chemical, biological, mechanical) prior to

disturbance of site.

● Invasive and nonnative species identified in concentration of less than 5 percent of the total

vegetation within the disturbance footprint or less than 15 percent within a 500 square foot

area may be considered. Projects proposed in populations exceeding these limitations shall

be denied.

● Invasive species management plans must be incorporated into the reclamation plan, and all

invasive and nonnative species must be treated (chemical, biological, mechanical) prior

to disturbance of the site.

● Construction that will occur in areas dominated by invasive nonnative species (INNS) shall

have vehicle wash stations established at the site (two wash stations for linear features at the

beginning of the infestation and at the end). All vehicles entering and exiting the site must

be washed prior to continuing construction

Appendix E Exception, Modification, and Waiver

Criteria, Avoidance Criteria, and Special

Management for Designated Corridors

Rights-of-Way February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1489

● ROW proposals within 500 feet of riparian-wetland areas shall be denied unless they are

determined to be unavoidable and impacts can be sufficiently mitigated.

Wild Horse Criteria

● As new project developments are considered, a careful evaluation must take place to

determine if wild horse displacement will increase, and if the displacement will be short or

long term. Long-term displacement could lead to changes in use patterns, herd dynamics, and

unforeseeable environmental influences to the herd.

● Proposed range improvements and other surface-disturbing and disruptive activities will be

subject to reclamation standards and mitigation requirements established under Appendix

D (p. 1477) and Appendix M (p. 1595) of the Lander RMP.

● If new fencing projects are being proposed in Herd Management Areas (HMAs) and ROW

avoidance areas, careful evaluation must take place to determine the direct, indirect, and

cumulative impacts to wild horse herds in HMAs. New fencing must show a neutral or

beneficial impact for wild horses. Mitigation, such as the construction of “let-down” fences

instead of permanent fencing, often reduces the risk of wild horses not being able to migrate

from one part of the HMA to another.

● Proposals for the construction of new water developments in HMAs must analyze all impacts

to horses. While the construction of new water developments can be beneficial, careful

evaluation must be made to ensure they do not create unintended consequences, such as

leading horses outside the boundaries of their HMA or impacting wildlife crucial winter range.

● All vegetation manipulation and land treatment proposals in ROW avoidance areas, including

prescribed burns, will be analyzed to ensure proper rest and reclamation success are achieved

after project implementation. Ensure that all protective fencing or other infrastructure installed

to protect treatment area(s) is compatible with wild horse use and movement.

● Ensure that any new developments in ROW avoidance areas preserve and maintain a healthy

and viable wild horse population that will survive and be successful in the HMA during poor

years when elements of the habitat are limiting due to severe winter conditions, drought, or

other uncontrollable and unforeseeable environmental influences to the herd.

Wildlife Criteria Considered

The BLM will use the following questions and/or criteria for wildlife and fish resources, including

species listed as endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate under the ESA, or listed on the

Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species List, when addressing proposals for projects in ROW avoidance

areas. Proposals will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In project-level environmental impact

statements and environment assessments, require, on a case-by-case basis, the development

of a wildlife resource monitoring and mitigation plan to address potential impacts from ROW

authorizations on wildlife populations and/or habitat.

● Is there existing disturbance in the project area? If yes, what kinds of disturbance and what

is the affected acreage? What is the expected number of acres of disturbance that would

be added to the existing disturbance total?

● Is there habitat for ESA or BLM Sensitive Species listed in the project area? If threatened and

endangered species are present, the project will not be authorized. If BLM Sensitive Species

are present, how many acres of this habitat are present in the surrounding area and how

many acres would be impacted by the project?

● Does the area contain habitats critical in supporting and/or maintaining regionally important

wildlife populations (big game crucial winter range, breeding/birthing/parturition habitat,

February 2013

Appendix E Exception, Modification, and Waiver

Criteria, Avoidance Criteria, and Special

Management for Designated Corridors

Rights-of-Way
1490 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas)? If yes, what type of habitat would the

project be in and for what species?

● Can the project be conducted and/or constructed entirely outside critical periods for wildlife

(breeding, nesting, parturition, and winter)?

● Can the project be co-located entirely within existing disturbance? If no, how many acres of

new disturbance would occur and how many acres of existing disturbance are in the project

area?

● For projects that are not co-located, will the project result in short-term or long-term loss

of habitat?

● Will the project lead to degradation of adjacent habitat from migration of surface disturbance,

access to new area, weeds, etc.?

● Will the project cause wildlife to avoid the area? Will the project result in a short-term or

long-term disruption to wildlife? What is the project life?

● Will the project lead to continued disruption to wildlife from site visitation and/or maintenance

activities?

● Will the location of the project result in functional loss of habitat due to fragmentation?

● Will authorizing the project lead to additional requests for projects in the same area?

● Are there hazards to wildlife associated with proposed project infrastructure?

● Does the project proponent identify adequate reclamation methods and timeframes?

● Does negating and/or minimizing impacts to wildlife cause impacts to other resources

identified as needing the area designated as an “avoidance area”?

Bison Basin Designated Corridor Criteria

● Beaver Rim Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is excluded.

● Plant: Critical Yermo habitat is excluded,

● Wildlife: Aggressive and accelerated reclamation plans for disturbances, including utilizing

native plant tubelings to simulate predisturbance conditions.

● Visual Resource Management (VRM): Meet all VRM class objectives.

● VRM: Within view of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and the Sixth Crossing

Visitors’ Center, keep all new surface disturbances within the existing county road disturbance,

keep all aboveground pipeline facilities out of view, and minimize use of pipeline markers and

adjust placement to protect resource values.

● Cultural Resources: Within view of the National Historic Trails, keep all surface disturbance

within existing county road disturbance, minimize the use of pipeline markers, and keep all

aboveground pipeline facilities out of view.

Appendix E Exception, Modification, and Waiver

Criteria, Avoidance Criteria, and Special

Management for Designated Corridors

Rights-of-Way February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1491

Appendix F. Lander Air Resources

Management Plan

F.1. Purpose

The purpose of this air resources management plan is to address air quality issues identified

by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in its analysis of potential impacts to air quality

resources for the Lander Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP). This plan outlines the

specific requirements for managing air resources and authorizing activities that have the potential

to adversely impact air resources within the Lander Field Office planning area. The plan also

outlines specific requirements for proponents of projects that have the potential to generate air

emissions and adversely impact air resources within the planning area.

F.2. Air Quality Issues

The BLM based its identification of air quality issues on the following information:

● The air emissions inventory compiled for the planning area which estimated potential

emissions of air pollutants for maximum allowable development and authorizations under

each alternative

● Existing air monitoring data from the South Pass Special Purpose Monitor (SPM) site,

Lander State and Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS), the South Pass City and Sinks

Canyon National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) sites, and the Bridger and North

Absaroka Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) sites.

● The Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for Oil and Gas (BLM 2009c),

Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report (BLM 2009b), and potential levels

and location of development identified in Chapter 4 of the RMP.

F.2.1. Magnitude of Emissions

An air emissions inventory was compiled for the planning area to determine the relative

magnitude of total air pollutant emissions and to compare emissions between alternatives.

Emissions were calculated using conservative assumptions about the likelihood of potential

activities occurring under each alternative that result in maximum air emissions being estimated.

For example, air emissions from oil and gas activities assume that all of the potential development

identified in the RFD will occur. The RFD is based upon known geologic conditions, current

development technology, and industry-provided data about future planned development. Future

pricing and economic or technical viability of geologic plays were not taken into account. Air

emissions from non-oil and gas mineral development, such as uranium mining, were calculated

assuming maximum development scenarios even though these activities are vulnerable to

economic variability. Assumptions regarding the use of air emission control technologies were

also very conservative. For example, air emissions from drilling activities assume a mixture of

Tier 1 – Tier 3 diesel engines. However, it is likely that significant improvement in emissions

could be realized over the life of the plan through the use of alternative drilling technologies.

As a result, the compiled air emissions inventory represents the emissions of air pollutants based

on best available but very speculative information for future development projections. It is

very likely that the emissions inventory over-estimates projected future emissions due to the

February 2013 Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan
1492 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

conservative assumptions used. However, it is valid for contrasting the impact of management

actions and strategies on air resources among alternatives. It is also useful for identifying those

activities that are likely to be major contributors to increased air emissions and developing

management actions to minimize their impact to air resources.

Despite the limitations of the air emissions inventory it supports two major conclusions:

1. there is not a substantial difference in total air emissions among alternatives (Table 4.1,

“Estimated Annual Emissions Summary for BLM Activities in the Lander Planning

Area” (p. 594)), and

2. for the management activities analyzed, oil and gas development activities are the major

contributor to total air emissions and non-oil and gas mineral development activities

(mining) are the major contributor to particulate matter emissions.

The reason there is not a substantial difference in total air emissions among alternatives is the

result of several factors:

● The oil and gas development in the planning area is primarily in tightly-focused discrete areas

that have relatively few conflicts with other resource uses. The constraints placed on oil and

gas development under all alternatives to protect other resources do not vary greatly, therefore,

the projected emissions do not vary greatly.

● Under Alternative B, the most restrictive alternative, a substantial portion of the oil and gas

RFD is assumed to be developed.

● Under all alternatives, existing sources of emissions are assumed to continue to comprise a

substantial portion of total projected emissions.

While the BLM has discretion to make allocative decisions in these areas under any alternative,

due to the high percentage of existing leases in areas with potential oil and gas development

(approximately 93 percent) the ability to implement substantial restrictions on development

is primarily limited to mitigation measures that can be applied during project approval. Such

restrictions include cooperative development of project-specific measures to minimize impacts to

air resources as outlined in this plan.

F.2.2. Pollutants of Concern

Air monitoring data from the South Pass SPM site located on the south western edge of the

planning area measured ozone (O3) concentrations above the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) during the 2008-2010 time period. Seven exceedances of the 8-hour O3

standard above 75 parts per billion (ppb) were recorded in 2009 while one hour values at or above

75 ppb were recorded twice in 2008 and once in 2010. The South Pass monitor was the only

monitor measuring O3 within the planning area during the 2008-2010 period. It is difficult to

determine if O3 concentrations above the NAAQS are occurring throughout the planning area

or if the high concentrations are unique to the South Pass area because of its proximity to and

downwind location from the Upper Green River Valley (a proposed O3 non-attainment area). The

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Air Quality Division has determined that

three stratospheric intrusions caused three periods in February through March 2009 where O3

exceedances occurred at the South Pass, Wyoming, monitor. The emissions inventory compiled

for each alternative shows that estimated emissions from BLM authorized activities such as

oil and gas development have the potential to cause or contribute to increased levels of O3

which may result in exceedances of the O3 standard due to increased emissions of O3 forming

precursors. Therefore, the BLM has identified O3 and the precursors, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and

Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan

Pollutants of Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1493

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as pollutants of concern to be addressed through specific

management actions described in this plan.

Air monitoring data from the residential SLAMs monitor located in the town of Lander shows

that the 98th percentile of 24-hour average concentrations for particulate matter less than 2.5

microns in diameter (PM2.5) averaged over the three year period 2008-2010 is approximately 30

micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) or 87 percent of the NAAQS. However, the annual average

of PM2.5 concentrations at the same site over the same time period is approximately 8.4 ug/m3 or

56 percent of the NAAQS. It is likely that the short term high concentrations in PM2.5 are due

to wintertime woodstove use and natural events such as wildfires or high wind events having a

localized impact in the town of Lander. It is difficult to fully support this conclusion due to a

lack of PM2.5 monitoring data in the planning area. The emissions inventory compiled for each

alternative shows that estimated emissions from BLM authorized activities such as mining and

vegetation management through prescribed fire may have the potential to cause or contribute to

short term localized increases in levels of PM2.5. Therefore, BLM has identified PM2.5 as a

pollutant of concern to be addressed through specific management actions described in this plan.

Representative air monitoring data for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) is not available for the

planning area, however increases in estimated emissions of a subset of these pollutants was shown

through the compilation of the emissions inventory for each alternative. Specifically, emissions

of benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes, n-hexane, and formaldehyde were estimated to

increase due primarily to development of oil and gas resources. Emissions of these pollutants

from leaks, venting, internal combustion, and flaring associated with BLM authorized oil and gas

development have the potential to result in short term, near-field increases in concentrations of

these pollutants. Therefore, BLM has identified this subset of HAPs as pollutants of concern to be

addressed through specific management actions described in this plan.

F.2.3. Air Emission Generating Activities

Air emissions were estimated for 11 different categories of activities that BLM authorizes,

allows, or performs and that have the potential to emit regulated air pollutants. The estimated

emissions, based on the maximum development potential under each alternative were used to

identify activities that have the potential to contribute to increases in concentrations of regulated

air pollutants and to determine those activities that warrant specific management strategies for

minimizing air quality impacts.

Under each alternative, oil and gas development activities were identified as the major contributor

to increases in emissions of NOx, VOC, and HAPs. Non-oil and gas mineral development

activities, specifically sand and gravel mining and processing, and other solid minerals mining

were identified as the major contributor to increases in particulate matter emissions.

F.2.4. Geographic Areas of High Potential for Development

The Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report and the RFD Scenario for Oil and Gas

identified geographic areas of high, moderate, and low development potential for conventional oil

and gas, coalbed natural gas (CBNG), and locatable and salable minerals.

One area was identified within the planning area as high potential for conventional oil and

gas development and is located in the northeast corner of the planning area surrounding the

February 2013

Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan

Air Emission Generating Activities
1494 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

town of Lysite. This area is comprised of the existing and proposed expansion of the Gun

Barrel, Madden Deep, Ironhorse oil and gas development units. Areas of moderate potential

for oil and gas development have been identified in the central portion of the planning area

surrounding the Beavercreek unit and in the southern portion of the planning area overlapping the

Fremont-Sweetwater county border (Map 17). Moderate potential for CBNG development has

been identified in these same two areas (Map 20).

Under Alternative D (Proposed RMP), the Lander Field Office identified Designated Development

Areas (Map 134) based on locations of high and moderate potential oil and gas development and

a need to protect other resources. The intention of these Designated Development Areas is to

maximize potential oil and gas development in defined locations while minimizing impacts to

other natural resources across the planning area. The locations of these Designated Development

Areas provide the following benefits to air resources:

● Encourages future oil and gas development in areas of existing development thereby reducing

impacts to air from new construction, new production facilities, and new compression sources

that would be required in undeveloped fields,

● Encourages future oil and gas development in areas located downwind of and over 50

kilometers (31 miles) from the nearest federally designated Class I area,

● Downwind impacts from the Designated Development Areas are not likely to impact Class I

or sensitive Class II areas, major population centers,

● Encourages future oil and gas development in geographic areas of relatively flat terrain with

minor shallow basins and relatively consistent west-southwesterly winds thereby minimizing

potential for stagnation and cold pooling that can lead to increased O3 formation,

● Encourages future oil and gas development in areas a considerable distance from major

population centers,

● Excludes oil and gas development in the Dubois area, an area of air quality sensitivity due to

its proximity to federally designated Class I and identified sensitive Class II areas.

Geographic areas of high, moderate, and low potential for locatable minerals (specifically

uranium, phosphate, bentonite, and gold) and salable minerals (specifically sand and gravel) were

identified within the planning area. The Lander Field office has also identified specific areas that

would be closed to mineral materials disposal (Map 37), and locatable mineral withdrawals (Map

24) within each of the alternatives. When these restrictions are considered in concert with the

geologic locations of non-oil and gas minerals, likely locations for non-oil and gas minerals

development are constrained to areas located primarily in the central and southern portions of

the planning area. These potential areas of development are located in geographic areas of

relatively flat terrain with minor shallow basins and relatively consistent west-southwesterly

winds. Because particulate matter emissions are the primary pollutant of concern associated

with non-oil and gas minerals development there is a potential for high winds in these areas to

contribute to short term increases in fugitive dust emissions from storage piles, wind erosion,

and construction activities. However, the likely locations for development are not located near

population centers, but are located downwind from Class I and sensitive Class II areas. Table F.1,

“Class I and Class II Areas in the Vicinity of the Planning Area” (p. 1495), displays Class I and

II areas in the vicinity of the planning area.

Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan

Geographic Areas of High Potential for Development February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1495

Table F.1. Class I and Class II Areas in the Vicinity of the Planning Area

Area Type Area Name

Closest Distance to

the Lander Planning

Area (miles)

Direction from the

Lander Planning

Area

Clean Air Act Status

of the Area

National Park Grand Teton National

Park

20 West Class I

Yellowstone National

Park

25 West Class I

Recreation Area Bighorn Canyon

National Recreation

Area

90 North Class II

Cloud Peak

Wilderness Area

60 Northeast Class II Wilderness Area

North Absaroka

Wilderness Area

80 Northwest Class I

Washakie Wilderness

Area

40 Northwest Class I

Fitzpatrick

Wilderness Area

In N/A Class I

Popo Agie Wilderness

Area

In N/A Class II

Bridger Wilderness

Area

Adjacent West Class I

Teton Wilderness

Area

30 Northwest Class II

Bighorn National

Forest

60 Northeast Class II

National Forest

Thunder Basin

National Grassland

90 East Class II

Source: NPS 2006

N/A Not Applicable

F.2.5. Summary of Air Quality Issues

● Recent measurements at an air monitoring station in the planning area show that measured

ambient concentrations of O3 have, on several occasions, exceeded the current O3 NAAQS

of 75 ppb.

● The emissions inventory showed potentially significant increases in estimated emissions of O3

forming pollutants (NOx and VOCs) which could result in increased concentrations of O3 if

oil and gas resources are authorized and developed to the full potential evaluated under each

alternative. In addition, potential increases in HAP and PM2.5 emissions and corresponding

short term increases in ambient concentrations could result if all activities are authorized and

developed to the full potential evaluated under each alternative.

● The air analysis for the RMP showed that oil and gas development activities have the potential

to be the major contributor to estimated NOx, VOC, and HAP emissions. Non-oil and gas

mineral development activities (i.e., sand and gravel extraction, bentonite, uranium, and gold

mining) have the potential to be the major contributor to estimated PM2.5 emissions.

● The geographic areas identified as having high potential for oil and gas or non-oil and gas

minerals development are located in areas that are unlikely to impact Class I or sensitive

Class II areas or major population centers.

February 2013

Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan

Summary of Air Quality Issues
1496 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

F.3. Field Office Air Resource Management Requirements

The Lander Field Office has the responsibility to implement the decisions of the RMP in a manner

that protects air quality while recognizing valid and existing leasing rights. Within the planning

area, most areas with high and moderate oil and gas development potential are already leased.

While the BLM has limited ability to alter the conditions of existing leases, it can require specific

actions and measures necessary to protect air quality in response to identified or anticipated

adverse impacts at the project level stage.

Development and implementation of appropriate protection measures is most effective at the

project approval stage, because the proposed action has been defined and impacts to air quality

are better able to be identified through National Environmental Policy Act analysis. As part of the

project approval process the BLM will identify project-specific measures in response to identified

impacts to air resources, as outlined in this air resources management plan.

F.3.1. Authorization of Air Emission Generating Activities

F.3.1.1 BLM has the authority and responsibility under Federal Land Policy and Management Act

to manage public lands in a manner that will protect the quality of air and atmospheric values.

Therefore, BLM may manage the pace, place, density, and intensity of leasing and development

to meet air quality goals.

F.3.1.2 BLM will, prior to authorization of any activity that has the potential to emit any regulated

air pollutant, consider the magnitude of potential air emissions from the project or activity,

existing air quality conditions, geographic location, and issues identified during project scoping

to identify pollutants of concern and to determine the appropriate level of air analysis to be

conducted for the project. This analysis may include; obtaining additional air monitoring data, air

dispersion modeling, photochemical grid modeling, and/or mitigation measures in addition to any

applicable regulatory emission limits and standards.

F.3.1.3 BLM will require project proponents to comply with the requirements under Section F.4

of this plan. BLM will review any project specific emissions inventory submitted as required

under Section F.4.1 to determine its completeness and accuracy.

F.3.1.4 In areas where Wyoming DEQ approved (or equivalent) air monitoring data shows that

ambient air concentrations of a regulated pollutant are at or above 85 percent of the applicable

NAAQS or Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standard (WAAQS), BLM will require the proponent

for any project that has the potential to emit the pollutant or precursors to the pollutant to comply

with (a) or (b) below:

a. Demonstrate that the project will result in no net increase in annual emissions of the

pollutant for the life of the project (e.g., through the application of emission control

technologies, offsets, or other air emission reducing strategies); or,

b. Demonstrate that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of the ambient air

quality standard through a quantitative air quality analysis (e.g., air dispersion modeling,

photochemical grid modeling or an equivalent level of analysis.

F.3.1.5 Ambient air monitoring data in the planning area shows that existing concentrations of

O3 are at a level of concern to the BLM and the emissions inventory for the Lander RMP shows

that oil and gas development activities have the potential to be a major contributor to O3 forming

Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan

Field Office Air Resource Management Requirements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1497

pollutant emissions. Therefore, the requirements of F.3.1.4 apply and project proponents for oil

and gas development activities within the planning area must comply with (a) or (b) below:

a. Demonstrate that the project will result in no net increase in annual emissions of NOx

and VOCs for the life of the project (e.g., through the application of emission control

technologies, offsets, or other air emission reducing strategies); or,

b. Demonstrate that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of the ambient air

quality standard for O3 through a quantitative air quality analysis (to include photochemical

grid modeling or an equivalent level of analysis).

F.3.1.6 Ambient monitoring data within the planning area shows that existing concentrations of

PM2.5 are at a level of concern to the BLM and the emissions inventory for the Lander RMP

shows that non-mineral development and prescribed fire activities have the potential to contribute

to increases in PM2.5 ambient concentrations. Therefore, prior to BLM approval of a project that

is likely to contribute to short term increases in PM2.5 ambient concentrations, BLM will require

any non-oil and gas mineral development project proponent to:

a. demonstrate that it has applied for and obtained any required air permit from Wyoming DEQ,

b. demonstrate that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable

ambient air quality standard and,

c. provide a plan for controlling and minimizing fugitive dust emissions.

Prescribed fire projects will be required to minimize impacts to air quality, and will comply with

local and state smoke management plans and regulations.

F.3.2. Monitoring

As part of a comprehensive air management plan for the planning area, BLM commits to the

following measures with regards to ambient air monitoring:

● BLM will work cooperatively with Wyoming DEQ to determine the best mechanism to

submit, track, and approve project specific pre-construction monitoring or monitoring data

required in a project specific record of decision (ROD),

● BLM will work cooperatively with Wyoming DEQ to share data collected from the existing

BLM-operated Wyoming Air Resource Monitoring System (WARMS) network and to support

Wyoming DEQ’s air monitoring network through siting, operation, and funding of additional

monitoring sites,

● BLM will continue to fund and operate the NADP monitoring site at Sinks Canyon.

● BLM may require project proponents to conduct pre-construction and/or project air

monitoring as described in Section F.4.2.

F.3.3. Modeling

BLM recognizes that air dispersion and photochemical grid models are useful tools for predicting

project specific impacts to air quality, predicting the potential effectiveness of control measures

and strategies, and for predicting trends in regional concentrations of some air pollutants. As part

of a comprehensive air management plan for the planning area, BLM commits to the following

with regards to air quality modeling:

● BLM will require project specific air quality modeling as outlined in Section F.4.

● BLM will ensure that project specific modeling is carried out in accordance with

Environmental Protection Agency modeling guidelines and in cooperation with the air quality

interagency review team.

February 2013

Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan

Monitoring
1498 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● BLM will support and participate in regional modeling efforts through multi-state and/or

multi-agency organizations such as Western Governor’s Association – Western Regional Air

Partnership, the Federal Leadership Forum, and Wyoming DEQ’s Ozone Technical Forum

and Resource Directory.

● Require modeling that assesses impacts to air quality and/or air-quality related values if a

proposed action meets at least one of the following conditions in each category:

● ○ Emissions/Impacts: The proposed action is anticipated to cause a substantial increase in

emissions based on the emissions inventory, or will materially contribute to potential

adverse cumulative air quality impacts as determined under the National Environmental

Policy Act.

○ Geographic Location: The proposed action is in

■ Proximity to a Class I or sensitive Class II Area; or

■ A Non-Attainment or Maintenance Area; or

■ An area expected to exceed the NAAQS or Prevention of Significant Deterioration

increment based on

■ Monitored or previously modeled values for the area;

■ Proximity to designated Non-Attainment or Maintenance Areas; or

■ Emissions for the proposed action based on the Emissions Inventory

F.3.4. Mitigation

BLM recognizes that many of the activities that it authorizes, permits, or allows generate

air pollutant emissions that have the potential to adversely impact air quality. The primary

mechanism to reduce air quality impacts is to reduce emissions (mitigation). As part of this

comprehensive air management plan for the planning area, BLM commits to the following with

regards to reducing emissions:

● BLM will require project proponents to include measures for reducing air pollutant emissions

in project proposals and Plans of Development as described in Section F.4,

● BLM will require additional air emission control measures and strategies within its regulatory

authority and in consultation with Wyoming DEQ and other federal agencies when appropriate

if an operator’s proposed or committed measures are insufficient to achieve air quality goals,

● BLM will ensure that air pollution control measures and strategies (both operator committed

and required mitigation) are enforceable by including specific conditions in a ROD.

F.4. Project Specific Requirements

BLM has identified activities and pollutants of concern for the planning area and this section

contains specific requirements for project proponents. Mineral development activities, specifically

oil and gas development and mining, have been identified as having the potential to contribute to

increases in ambient concentrations of O3, HAPs and PM2.5. Proponents of mineral development

projects must comply with Section F.4.1 and Section F.4.4.1 at a minimum. In addition, project

proponents for other activities may be required to comply with Section F.4 as determined by BLM

taking into account existing air quality conditions and availability of representative air monitoring

data, magnitude of estimated project emissions, meteorologic and geographic conditions in the

vicinity of the project, and the current state of air pollution control technology.

Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan

Mitigation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1499

F.4.1. Emissions Inventory

The proponent of a mineral development project will provide the BLM an emissions inventory that

quantifies emissions of regulated air pollutants from all sources related to the proposed project,

including fugitive emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, estimated for each year for the life of

the project. BLM will use this estimated emissions inventory to identify pollutants of concern and

to determine the appropriate level of air analysis to be conducted for the proposed project.

The BLM may require an emissions inventory for other actions depending on the magnitude of

potential air emissions from the project or activity, proximity to a federally mandated Class I area,

sensitive Class II area, or population center, location within a non-attainment or maintenance

area, meteorologic or geographic conditions, existing air quality conditions, magnitude of existing

development in the area, or issues identified during project scoping.

F.4.2. Monitoring

F.4.2.1 The proponent of a mineral development project that has the potential to emit more

than 100 tons per year of any criteria air pollutant must provide a minimum of one year of

baseline ambient air monitoring data for any pollutant(s) of concern as determined by BLM, if no

representative air monitoring data are being collected within 50 kilometer of the project area,

or existing ambient air monitoring data are insufficient, incomplete, or does not meet minimum

air monitoring standards set by Wyoming DEQ. If BLM determines that baseline monitoring is

required, this pre-analysis data must meet DEQ air monitoring standards, be obtained from a site

within 50 kilometer of project boundary, and cover the year immediately prior to the submittal.

This requirement may be waived where the life of the project is less than one year.

F.4.2.2 The BLM may require monitoring for the life of the mineral development project

depending on the magnitude of potential air emissions from the project or activity, proximity to

a federally mandated Class I area, sensitive Class II area, or population center, location within

a non-attainment or maintenance area, meteorologic or geographic conditions, existing air

quality conditions, magnitude of existing development in the area, or issues identified during

project scoping.

F.4.2.3 The BLM may require project proponents of other air emission generating projects to

conduct baseline or life of project air monitoring depending on the magnitude of potential air

emissions from the project or activity, proximity to a federally mandated Class I area, sensitive

Class II area, or population center, location within a non-attainment or maintenance area,

meteorologic or geographic conditions, existing air quality conditions, magnitude of existing

development in the area, or issues identified during project scoping.

F.4.3. Modeling

F.4.3.1 The proponent of a mineral development project that has the potential to emit more than

100 tons per year of any criteria pollutant will be required to conduct air quality modeling for any

pollutant(s) of concern, as determined by BLM, unless the project proponent can demonstrate

that the project will result in no net increase in emissions of the pollutant(s) of concern. BLM, in

cooperation with the interagency review team, will determine the parameters for the modeling

analysis through the development of a project specific modeling protocol.

February 2013

Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan

Emissions Inventory
1500 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

F.4.3.2 BLM may require air quality modeling for other air emission generating projects or for

projects, actions, or management activities with estimated emissions below the threshold listed

in F.4.3.1 if other criteria that warrant an air dispersion or photochemical modeling analysis are

identified for purposes of analyzing project direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to air quality.

Such criteria may include the magnitude of potential air emissions from the project or activity,

proximity to a federally mandated Class I area, sensitive Class II area, or population center,

location within a non-attainment or maintenance area, meteorologic or geographic conditions,

existing air quality conditions, magnitude of existing development in the area, or issues identified

during project scoping.

F.4.4. Mitigation

F.4.4.1 The proponent of a mineral development project will be required to minimize air pollutant

emissions by complying with all applicable state and federal regulations (including application of

Best Available Control Technology) and may be required to apply additional mitigation including

but not limited to best management practices and other control technologies or strategies identified

by the BLM or Wyoming DEQ in accordance with delegated regulatory authority.

F.4.4.2 The proponent of a mineral development project that has the potential to emit any

regulated air pollutant will be required to provide a detailed description of operator committed

measures to reduce project related air pollutant emissions including greenhouse gases and

fugitive dust. Project proponents for oil and gas development projects should refer to Table U.5,

“Emission Reduction Strategies for Oil and Gas Development” (p. 1662) included in Appendix

U (p. 1651) of the RMP (and in Table F.2, “Emission Reduction Strategies for Oil and Gas

Development” (p. 1501), below) as a reference for potential control technologies and strategies.

The list is not intended to preclude the use of other effective air pollution control technologies

that may be proposed.

F.4.4.3 BLM may require the proponent of other air emission generating projects to comply with

F.4.4.1 and F.4.4.2 based on the magnitude of potential air emissions from the project or activity,

proximity to a federally mandated Class I area, sensitive Class II area, or population center,

location within a non-attainment or maintenance area, meteorologic or geographic conditions,

existing air quality conditions, magnitude of existing development in the area, or issues identified

during project scoping.

F.4.4.4 BLM may require project proponents to submit a contingency plan that provides for

reduced operations in the event of an air quality episode. Specific operations and pollutants to be

addressed in the contingency plan will be determined by BLM on a case-by-case basis taking into

account existing air quality and pollutants emitted by the project.

Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan

Mitigation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1501

Table F.2. Emission Reduction Strategies for Oil and Gas Development

Mitigation Measure Environmental Benefits Environmental Liabilities Feasibility

Control Strategies for Drilling and Compression

Directional Drilling Reduces construction

related emissions (dust and

vehicle and construction

equipment emissions).

Decreases surface

disturbance and vegetation

impacts (dust and CO2 and

nitrogen flux). Reduces

habitat fragmentation

Could result in higher air

impacts in one area with

longer sustained drilling

times.

Depends on geological

strata

Improved engine

technology (Tier 2 or

better) for diesel drill rig

engines

Reduced NOx, PM, CO, and

VOC emissions

–

Dependent on availability

of technology from engine

manufacturers

Selective Catalytic

Reduction (SCR) for

drill rig engines and/or

compressors

NOx emissions reduction

and decreased formation

of visibility impairing

compounds. NOx control

efficiency of 95 percent

achieved on drill rig

engines. NOx emission

rate of 0.1 grams per

horsepower hour achieved

for compressors

Potential NH3 emissions

and formation of

visibility impairing

ammonium sulfate.

Regeneration/disposal

of catalyst can produce

hazardous waste.

Not applicable to 2-stroke

engines

Non-selective catalytic

reduction (NSCR) for

drill rig engines and/or

compressors

NOx emissions reduction

and decreased formation

of visibility impairing

compounds. NOx control

efficiency of 80-90

percent achieved for

drill rig engines. NOx

emission rate of 0.7 grams

per horsepower hour

achieved for compressor

engines greater than 100

horsepower.

Regeneration/disposal

of catalysts can produce

hazardous waste.

Not applicable to lean burn

or 2-stroke engines

Natural Gas fired drill rig

engines

NOx emissions reduction

and decreased formation

of visibility impairing

compounds

–

Requires onsite processing

of field gas.

Electrification of drill rig

engines and/or compressors

Decreased emissions at the

source. Transfers emissions

to more efficiently

controlled source (EGU)

Displaces emissions to

EGU.

Depends on availability

of power and transmission

lines

Improved engine

technology (Tier 2 or

better) for all mobile and

non-road diesel engines.

Reduced NOx, PM, CO, and

VOC emissions

–

Dependent on availability

of technology from engine

manufacturers

February 2013

Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan

Mitigation
1502 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Mitigation Measure Environmental Benefits Environmental Liabilities Feasibility

Green (also known as

closed loop or flareless)

completions

Reduction in VOC and

CH4 emissions. Reduces

or eliminate flaring and

venting and associated

emissions. Reduces or

eliminates open pits and

associated evaporative

emissions. Increased

recovery of gas to pipeline

rather than atmosphere.

Temporary increase in

truck traffic and associated

emissions.

Need adequate pressure

and flow. Need

onsite infrastructure

(tanks/dehydrator).

Availability of sales line.

Green completion permits

required by Wyoming

BACT in some areas

Green workovers Same as above. Same as above. Same as above.

Minimize or eliminate

venting and/or use closed

loop process where possible

during "blow downs"

Same as above.

–

Best Management Practices

required by Wyoming

BACT

Reclaim/remediate existing

open pits, no new open pits

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions. Reduces

potential for soil and water

contamination. Reduces

odors.

May increase truck traffic

and associated emissions.

Requires tank and/or

pipeline infrastructure.

Electrification of wellhead

compression/pumping

Reduces local emissions

of fossil fuel combustion

and transfers to more easily

controlled source.

Displaces emissions to EGU Depends on availability

of power and transmission

lines

Wind (or other renewable)

generated power for

compressors

Low or no emissions. May require construction

of infrastructure. Visual

impacts. Potential wildlife

impacts.

Depends on availability

of power and transmission

lines

Control Strategies Utilizing Centralized Systems

Centralization (or

consolidation) of gas

processing facilities

(separation, dehydration,

sweetening, etc.)

Reduces vehicle miles

traveled (truck traffic)

and associated emissions.

Reduced VOC and GHG

emissions from individual

dehy/separator units.

Temporary increase in

construction associated

emissions. Higher potential

for pipe leaks/groundwater

impacts.

Requires pipeline

infrastructure.

Liquids Gathering systems

(for condensate and

produced water)

Reduces vehicle miles

traveled and associated

emissions. Reduced VOC

and GHG emissions

from tanks, truck

loading/unloading, and

multiple production

facilities.

Temporary increase in

construction associated

emissions. Higher potential

for pipe leaks/groundwater

impacts.

Requires pipeline

infrastructure.

Water and/or fracturing

liquids delivery system

Reduced long term truck

traffic and associated

emissions.

Temporary increase in

construction associated

emissions. Higher potential

for pipe leaks/groundwater

impacts.

Requires pipeline

infrastructure. Not feasible

for some terrain.

Control Strategies for Tanks, Separators, and Dehydrators

Eliminate use of open top

tanks

Reduced VOC and GHG

emissions. –

Required by Wyoming

BACT for produced water

tanks in some areas.

Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan

Mitigation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1503

Mitigation Measure Environmental Benefits Environmental Liabilities Feasibility

Capture and control of

flashing emissions from all

storage tanks and separation

vessels with vapor recovery

and/or thermal combustion

units.

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions.

Pressure build up on

older tanks can lead to

uncontrolled rupture.

98 percent VOC control if ≥

10 TPY required statewide

by Wyoming BACT

Capture and control of

produced water tank

emissions.

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions.

–

98 percent VOC control and

no open top tanks required

by Wyoming DEQ in some

areas

Capture and control of

dehydration equipment

emissions with condensers,

vapor recovery, and/or

thermal combustion.

Reduces VOC, HAP, and

GHG emissions.

–

Still vent condensers

required and 98 percent

VOC control if ≥ 8 TPY

required statewide and

in CDA by Wyoming

BACT. All dehy emissions

controlled at 98 percent in

JPAD (no 8 TPY threshold)

Control Strategies for Misc. Fugitive VOC Emissions

Install and maintain low

VOC emitting seals, valves,

hatches on production

equipment.

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions.

– –

Initiate an equipment

leak detection and repair

program (including use

of FLIR cameras, grab

samples, organic vapor

detection devices, visual

inspection, etc.)

Reduction in VOC and

GHG emissions.

– –

Install or convert gas

operated pneumatic

devices to electric,

solar, or instrument (or

compressed) air driven

devices/controllers.

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions.

Electric or compressed

air driven operations

can displace or increase

combustion emissions.

–

Use "low" or "no bleed"

gas operated pneumatic

devices/controllers.

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions. –

or closed loop required

statewide by Wyoming

BACT

Use closed loop system or

thermal combustion for gas

operated pneumatic pump

emissions.

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions.

–

Required statewide by

Wyoming BACT (98

percent VOC control or

closed loop)

Install or convert gas

operated pneumatic

pumps to electric, solar, or

instrument (or compressed)

air driven pumps.

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions.

Electric or compressed

air driven operations

can displace or increase

combustion emissions.

Required statewide by

Wyoming BACT if no

thermal combustion used.

Install vapor recovery on

truck loading/unloading

operations at tanks.

Reduces emissions of VOC

and GHG emissions.

Pressure build up on

older tanks can lead to

uncontrolled rupture.

Wyoming BACT analysis

required if VOC ≥ 8 TPY or

HAP ≥ 5 TPY.

Control Strategies for Fugitive Dust and Vehicle Emissions

Unpaved surface treatments

including watering,

chemical suppressants,

and gravel.

20 percent - 80 percent

control of fugitive dust

(particulates) from vehicle

traffic.

Potential impacts to water

and vegetation from runoff

of suppressants.

–

February 2013

Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan

Mitigation
1504 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Mitigation Measure Environmental Benefits Environmental Liabilities Feasibility

Use remote telemetry and

automation of wellhead

equipment.

Reduces vehicle traffic and

associated emissions. – –

Speed limit control and

enforcement on unpaved

roads.

Reduction of fugitive dust

emissions. – –

Reduce commuter vehicle

trips through car pools,

commuter vans or buses,

innovative work schedules,

or work camps.

Reduced combustion

emissions, reduced fugitive

dust emissions, reduced O3

formation, reduced impacts

to visibility.

– –

Miscellaneous Control Strategies

Use of ultra-low sulfur

diesel in engines,

compressors, construction

equipment, etc.

Reduces emissions of

particulates and sulfates.

–

Fuel not readily available in

some areas.

Reduce unnecessary vehicle

idling.

Reduced combustion

emissions, reduced O3

formation, reduced impacts

to visibility, reduced fuel

consumption.

– –

Reduced pace of (phased)

development.

Peak emissions of all

pollutants reduced.

Emissions generated at a

lower rate but for a longer

period. LOP, duration of

impacts is longer.

May not be economically

viable or feasible if multiple

mineral interests.

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

NOX Nitrogen Oxides

O3 ozone

CO Carbon Monoxide

EGU Electric Generating Unit

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

CH4 Methane

NH3 Ammonia

BACT Best Available Control Technology

GHG Greenhouse Gas

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

LOP life of plan

TPY Tons per year

JPAD Joint Precision Airdrop System

FLIR Forward Looking Infrared

Appendix F Lander Air Resources Management Plan

Mitigation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1505

Appendix G. Example Detailed,

Multi-phased, Reclamation Plan

Continental Divide-Creston Natural Gas Project Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) Reclamation Goal Statement

Encourage informed decisions to minimize initial disturbance and return disturbance as quickly

and effectively as possible to pre-disturbance conditions. Identify important characteristics of

revegetation for evaluation of interim reclamation that serve as criteria for rollover and that are

indicative that revegetation is moving toward successful reclamation.

A. Development of a comprehensive reclamation plan

I. Conduct a pre-disturbance inventory of proposed disturbance and

reference areas

Pre-disturbance inventories are used for two main purposes. The first is to use

site-specific information to develop a reclamation plan, including treatment of soils

and identification of appropriate species to include in the seed mix and the site's ability

to serve as a source of seed prior to disturbance. The second purpose is to identify

any issues, such as saline soils, steep topography, or invasive species that will impact

successful interim and/or final reclamation.

II. Describe landscape features and climate

1. Climate and physical characteristics of the site are important factors to

consider in development of a reclamation plan, particularly in identifying

possible problems. For example, a site on a south-facing slope may suggest

that more drought tolerant plants should be selected than if the site is on a

north-facing slope. Topography (slope and aspect), climate (including postulated

microclimate), and parent materials (geological substrates) are considerations

in site selection and reclamation plan development.

2. Steep topography: Steep slopes that would result in site instability should be

avoided. If the slope is greater than 25 percent, the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) may advise the site be relocated.

3. Poor or erodible parent materials, or a rocky surface or, marine shales,

clay/siltstone, or selenium bearing geological substrates at the surface may result

in difficult reclamation conditions and should be avoided. If such areas are

planned to be disturbed by the Operator, all possible resources will need to be

employed by the BLM to ensure successful reclamation.

4. Available climate information, including precipitation patterns and growing

season relative to the site planned for disturbance, will be addressed by the

Operator in the site-specific reclamation plan in the Application for Permit to

Drill (APD) approved by the BLM.

III. Suitable soil inventory

February 2013

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan
1506 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

a. Soil characteristics may strongly influence reclamation efforts. Fundamental

characterization of soils ahead of disturbance can identify potential problems,

so they can be addressed during disturbance, soil stockpiling and reclamation,

instead of waiting for reclamation failure.

b. The phrase “suitable soil” is used mainly because of confusion over the

definition of topsoil. Soil depth, pH, electrical conductivity, texture, surface

features (e.g. barren, rocky, crusty, plant litter), and organic matter content

are characteristics that may be used to determine if a soil is suitable. Other

information may be needed. See: “Successful restoration of severely disturbed

lands: Overview of critical components,” B-1202, (and available for free at

http://ces.uwyo.edu/PUBS/B1202.pdf).

c. Soil characteristics that can signal a high probability of reclamation problems

include: pH, electrical conductivity, soil texture, surface/subsurface features,

sodium adsorption ratio, calcium carbonate content, soil compaction and

saturation percentage and the below listed characteristics will be addressed by the

Operator in the site-specific reclamation plan in the APD approved by the BLM.

1. Soils with pH 7.8 and higher progressively become less suitable for

reclamation and will be addressed by the Operator in the site-specific

reclamation in the APD approved by the BLM.

2. An electrical conductivity of soil greater than eight (8) dS/m and any

increase in salt content of the soil above .5 dS/m will progressively

negatively affect the establishment and growth of plants. Soils exhibiting

these characteristics will be addressed by the Operator in the site-specific

reclamation plan in the APD approved by the BLM.

3. Soils with textures representing clay, sand or loamy sand will be addressed

by the Operator in the site-specific reclamation plan in the APD approved

by the BLM.

4. Surface and subsurface soil in and through the root zone dominated by

coarse material greater than 2 mm in diameter and greater than 40 percent

in the soil profile to be stockpiled may signify reclamation difficulties and

will be considered in the site-specific reclamation plan in the APD by the

BLM and Operator.

5. Sodium adsorption ratio is a key diagnostic soil trait that may be determined

for soils to be disturbed and placed in the suitable soil stockpile; and will

be addressed by the Operator in the site-specific reclamation plan in the

APD approved by the BLM.

6. Calcium carbonate content (percent lime) will control the amount of plant

available phosphorus and will determined in the site-specific reclamation

plan in the APD by the Operator and approved by the BLM.

7. The soil saturation percentage will control the ability for plants to germinate

and survive after reclamation actions have been taken by the Operator

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1507

and will be addressed by the Operator in the site-specific reclamation plan

in the APD approved by the BLM.

IV. Vegetation inventory

a. Gathering vegetation data before a site has been cleared for drilling documents

pre-disturbance site conditions and in turn guides management decisions

regarding what species could be expected to successfully revegetate a site to

match its existing or potential state. Seed mixes should be based on desired

vegetation that has historically grown on-site and that has been shown to be

successful in previous trials. Return of cover should be gauged by comparison

with actual pre-disturbance site conditions and/or reference areas.

b. Vegetation characteristics that would signal a high probability of reclamation

problems:

1. The presence of Halophytes: e.g., Saltbush

2. The presence of Alkali Halophytes: e.g., Greasewood, Halogeton

3. The presence of Noxious and Invasive Species: e.g., Cheatgrass, Russian

thistle, Russian knapweed, Alyssum, Canada thistle.

c. The methodologies to be used to determine the information for the vegetation

inventory will be addressed by the Operator in the site-specific reclamation plan

in the APD approved by the BLM.

1. BLM guidelines for vegetation sampling: Sampling Vegetation Attributes,

Interagency Technical Reference (1996) Revised in 1997 and 1999.

BLM/RS/ST-96/002+1730. 171 pages. URL for Sampling Vegetation

Attributes: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/samplveg.pdf. All BLM

technical references: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techref.htm.

V. Select a reference area

a. A reference area is a land unit which is representative, in terms of physiography,

soils, vegetation and land use history, of an area to be affected by resource

extraction. Reclaimed areas are compared to reference areas to determine

successful interim and final reclamation.

b. In Wyoming, a site can have multiple ecological communities surrounding it (e.g.

dunes, alkali flats, and sagebrush). Ecological variation at a given site can make

it difficult to evaluate which adjacent area should serve as a reference. The most

accurate way to choose a reference area is to perform pre-disturbance monitoring

and identify the dominant community on or adjacent to a site before construction

begins. This measure ensures that initial efforts to establish vegetation are

consistent with species that naturally occur at that location. A reference area

located adjacent to the construction site, with similar soils, vegetation, and aspect

of the area to be disturbed will be addressed by the Operator in the site-specific

reclamation plan in the APD approved by the BLM.

February 2013

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan
1508 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

B. Invasive plant management plan for construction and reclamation

activities

Disturbed sites can provide ideal opportunities for invasive plant species to propagate.

Invasive plants can be transferred to the disturbed site from adjoining areas and out-compete

desired vegetation during reclamation and/or spread to new areas. The best approach to

combat invasive species is to use careful suitable soil handling and an appropriate seed mix.

Pre-disturbance planning, including early weed management for invasive species is vital to

reduce costs and ensure successful reclamation.

a. Assess for noxious and invasive weed species before initiating surface disturbing

activities, during disturbance, during interim and final reclamation, and after

reclamation is completed.

b. Web address for the Wyoming Weed and Pest Council: http://www.wyoweed.org/

c. Apply weed control treatments

d. Monitor weedy plant species at least annually to evaluate success of weed control

treatments and determine if continued weed control is necessary.

C. Develop a reclamation plan

Reclamation planning provides a detailed strategy for returning a disturbed site back to a

functioning pre-disturbance condition. Reclamation planning also may minimize costs and

greatly improves chances of successful interim and final reclamation. The reclamation plan

will be made part of the APD by the Operator and BLM.

I. Site preparation, storm water, surface stability, and soil management

for interim reclamation

a. Site preparation activities readies a site for revegetation activities and in general

include replacement of stockpiled suitable and unsuitable soils, reestablishing

a stable subsurface environment, recontouring (reconstruction of landscape),

incorporation of soil amendments and primary tillage/ripping to relieve soil

compaction prior to spreading suitable soil and secondary tillage using a

parabolic plow just prior to seeding.

b. Soil Management includes the handling and management of stockpiled soil on

the site in a way that minimizes loss from erosion and best preserves its ability to

support a productive plant community, the soil biota and their habitat as well as

its physical and chemical properties.

c. A Construction Stormwater Permit from the Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) is required any time a project results in clearing,

grading, or otherwise disturbing one or more acres. The disturbed area does not

need to be contiguous. The permit is required for surface disturbances associated

with construction of the project, access roads, construction of wetland mitigation

sites, borrow and stockpiling areas, equipment staging and maintenance areas

and any other disturbed areas associated with construction. A general permit has

been established for this purpose and either the Operator or general contractor is

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1509

responsible for filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) and complying with the provisions

of the general permit.

d. A reclamation plan should include a description of how the Operator will achieve

the following for surface stability:

1. Redistribute soil materials in a manner to optimize revegetation potential.

2. Relieve compaction of the redistributed soil (suitable and unsuitable) to an

appropriate depth (18-24 inches) just prior to seeding to accommodate

desired plant species germination and sustained growth.

3. Prepare the seedbed, optimize roughness, furrow on contour to

prevailing wind or pit, description of technology to be used, establish

surface conditions that would enhance development of diverse, stable,

self-generating plant communities, and description of erosion control to

be maintained on the site.

4. reestablish slope stability and surface stability.

5. Reconstruct the landscape to the approximate original contour or a contour

consistent with the land use plan.

6. Maximize geomorphic stability and topographic diversity of the reclaimed

topography.

7. Eliminate high walls, cut slopes, and/or topographic depressions on site,

unless otherwise approved.

8. Reconstruct drainage basins and reclaim impoundments to maintain the

drainage pattern, profile, and dimension to approximate the natural features

found in nearby naturally functioning basins.

9. Reconstruct and stabilize stream channels, drainages, and impoundments

to exhibit similar hydrologic characteristics found in stable naturally

functioning systems.

10. Minimize wind, sheet and rill erosion on/or adjacent to the reclaimed area.

11. There shall be no evidence of mass wasting, head cutting, large rills

or gullies, down cutting in drainages, or overall slope instability on/or

adjacent to the reclaimed area. Site selection is the favorable method to

avoid these issues.

12. Protect seed and seedling establishment (e.g., erosion control matting,

mulching, hydro-seeding, surface roughening, fencing, etc.).

II. Recommendations for suitable soil stockpiling to maintain soil quality

Suitable soil for reclamation will be stockpiled on the site for use in future site

reclamation and will be addressed by the Operator in the site-specific reclamation

plan in the APD approved by the BLM.

February 2013

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan
1510 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

III. Describe soil amendments

a. Soil amendment(s) may be used in reclamation if the soil is lacking the necessary

chemical, biological, physical and /or organic materials to support sustaining

growth of suitable plant materials. The soil type, soil characteristics (see A., ii.

b), geographic location, along with soil mapping resources available should

provide the information necessary to define the soil amendment.

b. The Operator should state what applying soil amendments is intended to

accomplish. Soil amendment plans should be provided, including what

amendments will be applied, method of application, timing relative to other

reclamation activities (i.e. stockpiling, seeding, ripping).

c. The soil type is defined by the soil samples obtained prior to or in some cases

after disturbance takes place. Soil amendments must be scientifically calculated

based on the soil characteristics (see A., ii. b) so as to provide the most cost

efficient and best assurances for successful reclamation.

d. Soil amendments include but are not limited to the following: Weed free grass

hay, weed free wood chips or other weed free cellulosic materials, gypsum,

elemental sulfur, and fertilizer.

IV. Describe seeding methods

a. Different plant species may require different conditions (e.g. seeding depth, seed

scarification, mixing, and timing) for optimal germination success. Seeding

methods should match germination characteristics of species in the seed mix

and consider timing of planting to maximize germination and establishment of

all reclamation species.

b. The Operator will describe when seeding will occur and specify the methods

they will use for seeding, including differential handling for different species

(e.g. broadcast vs. drilling vs. Imprinting), and seeding depth in the site-specific

reclamation plan of the APD. Re-seeding may need to occur if invasive and/or

noxious weeds prevent establishment of the seed mix. See Appendix A below

for references.

V. Seed mixes

1. The need to provide multifunctional and sustainable seed mixes for interim and

final reclamation and soil stability is driven by a desire to increase potential

for successful and timely re-vegetation and site stability. Plant diversity and

habitat functionality are directly impacted by the seed choices applied to an area

slated to be reclaimed or restored. To maintain as much stability and ecological

function this section makes recommendations to specifically aid an operator’s

selection process. Please see Appendix A for references.

1. Select site-appropriate, adapted native plant materials based on the

pre-disturbance plant community composition, site characteristics, and

ecological setting. Seeds may be obtained from commercial sources of

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1511

certified weed-free seed mixes. Alternatively, local collections may be used

provided they are collected in an area without weedy species.

2. Perennial naturalized species may be used when attempts to reclaim using

native plants have not succeeded for a minimum of 2 full growing seasons.

Reclamation should succeed using native species if soils are properly

managed, precipitation is not limiting, seed mixes are carefully selected

and seeded areas protected from grazing.

3. Based upon site-specific conditions, a decision may be made to use

non-natives sooner than identified above and will be used in only unique

conditions defined in the site-specific reclamation plan in the APD.

VI. Describe if and how irrigation techniques will be used in the

reclamation plan

a. Revegetation success is highly dependent on timing and amounts of precipitation.

However, variable weather in Wyoming can limit or delay successful germination

and establishment of plants. Irrigation can supplement natural precipitation

to insure success of newly seeded site during the initial growth period of the

plant. However, overuse of irrigation may result in plants that are dependent

on supplemental water, therefore irrigation practices must be used carefully

and conservatively.

b. Supplemental irrigation should be scientifically determined and applied.

c. Both soil and water samples should be tested before application and said water

source should meet appropriate limits for sodium adsorption ratio and EC.

Special consideration of soil chemistry and amendments will be a determining

factor for the use of the source water.

d. Water must be utilized from permitted sources and should be permitted for such

purposes. Produced water from sources, i.e. “coal bed natural gas wells” must

adhere to discharge permits and be recognized by the Wyoming DEQ. Water

utilized from sub surface water wells must be permitted and in good standing

with State Engineers Office.

e. Irrigation can be cost prohibitive and should not be a requirement for reclamation

but used as a tool to enhance vegetative growth.

VII.

Describe best management practices

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are techniques that can be applied to surface

disturbance and reclamation actions to aid in reclamation success. Identify the

appropriate BMPs during planning and they can guide the surface disturbance and

reclamation process. Additionally, documenting BMPs provides opportunities to

evaluate for success, so BMPs can be modified for future use in similar conditions.

Please see Appendix A for BLM recommendations.

VIII.

Description of monitoring and reporting protocols for reclamation

rollover

February 2013

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan
1512 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

a. Site Monitoring is conducted to observe and keep track of environmental

conditions on the reclaimed site. Specifically, monitoring is done to document

proper development of the reseeded plant community, soil stability and proper

ecosystem function. Continued characterization after disturbance and during

interim reclamation is appropriate for monitoring site maturation and stability,

particularly when problematic soil conditions or invasive weeds are identified.

b. Vegetative monitoring and disturbed site evaluation for any component of the

reclamation plan applicable to the APD shall take place at intervals agreed to

by the BLM and the Operator with input by any entity who utilizes the surface

estate (i.e. grazing permittee) of the disturbed site. Generally, the intervals for

monitoring and reporting will be set annually by the BLM unless otherwise

documented in the site-specific reclamation plan for the APD. The Interim

Reclamation Objective (IRO) achievement by the Operator will reduce the

mandatory monitoring and reporting described in the reclamation plan to a time

period agreed to by the Operator and BLM and will be added to the site-specific

reclamation plan by the BLM. Once the disturbed site achieves the IRO, the site

will be subject to all applicable requirements of the reclamation plan until a

time that the Final Reclamation Objective (FRO) is achieved by the Operator

and approved by the BLM. Once the BLM has accepted the site for IRO status

the BLM will also notify the Operator of the resulting acreage gained for

reclamation rollover.

c. The IRO is to reconstruct and revegetate the portion of the disturbed land unused

for long term production and establish the vegetative cover sufficient to maintain

a healthy, biologically active topsoil; control erosion; and minimize habitat,

visual and forage loss during the life of the well and/or facilities.

d. The long-term FRO is to return the land to a condition that which existed

prior to disturbance with allowances for an improved and/or stable ecological

condition, if possible. This includes reconstruction of the landform to its original

state along with reestablishment of a stable vegetative community, hydrologic

systems, visual resources, and wildlife habitats. To ensure that the FRO will be

achieved and maintained through human and natural processes, actions will be

taken to ensure standards are met for site stability, visual quality, hydrological

functioning, and vegetative productivity beyond the end of the life of the well

or facilities.

e. Monitoring should be designed and implemented by the Operator to document

continuing successful interim reclamation for reclamation rollover using

methodologies approved by BLM.

1. Once the IRO is achieved and reclamation rollover granted by BLM,

the Operator will continue to monitor the condition of the reclamation,

document that the revegetation continues to meet IRO, and that the

revegetation trajectory is toward achievement of FROs as defined in the

site-specific reclamation plan approved by BLM.

2. Identify potential problems and determine appropriate mitigation measures

with the implementation of adaptive management.

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1513

f. The required elements of monitoring to assess IRO and FRO will be identified

and will be addressed by the Operator in the site-specific reclamation plan in the

APD approved by the BLM. Please see Appendix A for additional information.

D. Indicators for successful achievement for the IRO resulting in reclamation

rollover

I. Beginning Monitoring

Monitoring should begin the first growing season. Evaluation is possible after a

minimum of two full growing seasons.

II. Irrigation and monitoring

If irrigation is used initially, then the reclamation may be evaluated for interim

reclamation success two (2) full growing seasons after irrigation ceases to assure that

the plant community can survive without supplemental water.

III. The IRO reclamation rollover criteria is as depicted in the Rawlins

Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) vs alternative criteria

if this process is followed

The Current Rawlins Field Office RMP states “Criteria based on predisturbance

surveys or surveys of adjacent undisturbed natural ground cover and species

composition (The vegetation will consist of species included in the seed mix and/or

occurring in the surrounding natural vegetation or as deemed desirable by BLM in

review and approval of the reclamation plan. No single species will account for more

than 30 percent total vegetative composition unless it is evident at higher levels in the

adjacent landscape. Vegetation canopy cover production and species diversity shall

approximate the surrounding undisturbed area) or –

● Eighty percent of predisturbance ground cover and ninety percent dominate

species.

Should this pre-disturbance protocol be followed, it is our recommendation to provide

an alternative to the above language and have revegetation cover be 70 percent of

reference area cover to meet interim criteria. All of this 70 percent must be desirable

perennial species as represented by the seed mix. Items D, I, ii and iv through ix would

also need to be followed to interim reclamation criteria.

IV. Monitoring results must be from a standardized cover/species

protocol finalized by BLM

V. Noxious weeds

No noxious weeds will be allowed.

VI. Invasive weeds

Invasive weed species cover no greater than adjacent invasive species cover. All other

undesirable perennial or annual plants as defined in the site-specific APD shall be

continually controlled or eradicated on the original disturbed area.

February 2013

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan
1514 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

VII.

Undesirable/annual plants

For purposes of successful IRO achievement, the amount of undesirable perennial or

annual plant species shall be as represented in the site-specific reclamation plan and

determined by vegetative monitoring of the disturbed area and will be addressed by

the Operator in the site-specific reclamation plan in the APD approved by the BLM.

VIII.

Vegetative trending

If vegetative trending is not positive within 3 full growing seasons without irrigation

or 2 years after irrigation, the BLM and Operator will determine through adaptive

management the needs for the disturbed site.

IX. Erosion

Erosion features equal to or less than surrounding area.

E. The monitoring data reporting required of the Operator as specified

in the Rawlins RMP (with some additions to clarify and flow with

document-original language in Appendix 36 of the Rawlins RMP)

Reclamation Monitoring Reporting Data required to be obtained and filed by the Operator.

General

WYW# (Oil and Gas Lease or Right-of-Way (ROW)

Project Name:

Project Type (e.g. Well, Access Road, Pipeline, Facility, Wind)

Qtr/Qtr Sec, T, R, County, State

Disturbance

Disturbance Dates

Start-End

Reclamation Type (Interim/Final)

Reclamation

Earthwork Contractor Name

Earthwork Completion Date

Soil Preparation Ripping Depth (prior to re-spreading suitable soil)

Area (Acres or Square Feet)

Seeding Contractor Name

Seeding Date

Seedbed/Compaction Release Preparation Methods (Describe -Rip, Disc, Harrow, Parabolic, Depths)

Seeding

Seeding Method (Drill, Broadcast, Imprint, Depths)

Copy of Seed Tag (Species %, Purity %, Germination %)

Actual Seeding Rate (Lbs/Acre of each species)

Area Seeded (Acres or Square Feet)

Soil Amendments Used (Describe)

Other

Mulching/Erosion Netting/Tackifier used – yes/no and describe

Fenced Location yes/no

Snow Fencing yes/no

Weeds

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1515

Type(s) of Weed Treated - List

Weed Contractor Name

Contractor License #

Weed Treatment Date

Weed Treatment Type (Chemical, Mechanical)

Chemicals Used and Rates Applied

Area Treated (Acres or Square Feet) (GIS Extent and Location)

Inspection

Inspector’s Name, Company, ID

Inspection Date

Time after Seeding (which Growing season)

Seedlings/Square Feet Growing

Percent and Extent of Bare Soil (Describe)

Percent Ground Cover (Describe)

Percent Desirable Species (Describe)

Percent Noxious/Invasive Weeds (Describe)

Erosion Features Present? (Describe)

Evidence of Livestock Grazing (Describe)

Reclamation Successful (Yes/No)

Reporting

Completed Spreadsheet or Database as defined by BLM

GIS Layer With Attribute Table With Site Data as Detailed

Detail Disturbance Extent and Location

Permanent Photo Reference Point -Describe

Monitoring

Reference Photos

Close-Up Photos

Reseeding yes/no

Future Management Prescription

Weed Control Needed - yes/no and explanation

Erosion control Needed - yes/no and explanation

Grazing/Predation Issues - yes/no and explanation

Other Cultural or Mechanical Needs - yes/no and explanation

Record - yes/no and explanation

BLM Bureau of Land Management

GIS Geographic Information Systems

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS U.S. Forest Service

VRM Visual Resource Management

Appendix A

A. Suggestions on Stockpiling Suitable and Unsuitable Soils to Maintain Soil

Quality

Stockpiled topsoil should not be piled too deeply or too shallow. The taller or deeper the

piles, the more soil is buried under large amounts of pressure resulting in compaction. Soil

buried deep in the pile also has little exposure to oxygen resulting in anaerobiosis; deeply

buried soil also has no organic matter input. Both of these problems reduce soil quality.

Shallow or small topsoil stockpiles have large footprints on the land surface with the

disadvantage of covering greater areas of undisturbed soil which will, in turn, require

revegetation, resulting in a greater overall amount of disturbed soil. Smaller or shallow

stockpiles also have a greater surface area per amount of soil stored which increases

February 2013

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan
1516 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

exposure of the stockpiled soil to wind and water erosion. The surface of soil stockpiles

should always be vegetated to minimize erosion losses.

1. Salvaged stockpiles of suitable soil should be no deeper than 4 meters (13 feet) and

should be less where possible.

2. Stockpile slopes should not exceed 5:1 angles (20 percent slopes) to allow for seeding

and minimize erosion.

3. Suitable Soil stockpiles should be located in areas to prevent their disturbance and

contamination by well pad activities. They should not be placed in streambeds or

ephemeral drainages where they may be washed away. They should be protected

from wind erosion.

4. A perimeter ditch/berm should be constructed around the stockpile for topsoil

conservation and sediment control.

5. All suitable soil stockpiles should be seeded with native cool season grass to provide

cover and protect them from water and wind erosion. Before seeding, the stockpile

may be scarified along contours to minimize wind and water erosion.

6. If soil horizons or layers are to be stratified during soil salvage (stripping) operations,

soil maps should be made of the well pad area to identify depths of soil horizons and

surface slope. The pad area to be cleared of soils should then be divided into strips

the size of the blades or equipment being used for soil removal. The depth of soil

removal from each swath should be clearly marked so that equipment operators are

removing a uniform layer from each strip. After the topsoil is removed from the area

in this manner, the subsoil can then be removed in the same fashion, strip by strip,

each strip at a uniform depth.

B. Suggestions on Supplemental Irrigation

Supplemental irrigation should be scientifically determined and applied in the initial four to

six week period of growth of the seedling plants and then ended. Such determination could

be the application of an amount of irrigation water equivalent to the average or average plus

25 percent of the precipitation expected during a given interval.

C. Suggestions on Vegetation and Soil Monitoring

Examples of monitoring components are listed below:

1. Reference: http://agriculture.wy.gov/forms/natres/rangelandmonitoring.pdf

2. Operators should use the same locations and methods used at baseline for repeat

photography. Additional locations may be selected to document progress of reclaimed

area to demonstrate interim and final reclamation success, and to monitor any

identified problems such as erosional features. The site should be photographed once

every year normally at the same time period, from the same locations and direction

so that photographs are repeated through time. Photographs should be taken during

the growing season.

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1517

3. Weed assessment: Disturbed and reclaimed areas should be evaluated for noxious and

invasive weeds at least annually. Weed control should be promptly implemented by

the Operator once weed species and infestations are identified. Weed control applied at

planned chemical rates at times the weed is emerging can have positive impacts in

minimizing weed growth through-out the year as well as promoting the growth of

grass species. The timing of the control should be determined by the growth habits

of the weed species and when they are most effectively assessed. If weeds persist,

reseeding the site could be considered as well as the species of grass, forb or shrub.

4. Erosion control/soil stability: The reclaimed area should be evaluated for any signs of

erosion problems annually and when the site is subject to erosional events. Identified

erosion features should be monitored using repeat photography. Absence of erosion

features is a positive indication that the soil is stabilizing.

5. Cover and composition data should be used to document that the plant community

continues to trend toward the requirements to achieve interim and final reclamation

success. The data should be used to evaluate if species composition and cover are

increasing. These factors should be considered relative to the number of species in

the seed mix, the selected reference area, and offsite responses to seasonal growing

conditions.

6. Plant community cover and composition measurements: The Operator should start

collecting cover and composition data beginning in the first (1st) growing season after

disturbance. Data should be collected using repeatable methods approved by the

appropriate regulatory authority (BLM) and should be the same methods that were

used to describe vegetation for baseline (or reference area). The same methods should

be used each time the vegetation is monitored.

7. Soils should be monitored if reclamation problems suggest that soils might be the

problem. Such problems include but are not limited to salt crusts, clay crusts,

wind and/or water erosion and rapid changes in pH (up or down) Recommended

soil monitoring would include sampling soils and analysis of soil characteristics as

described in the Development of a comprehensive plan section.

D. Web Links

Equipment

Equipment — http://www.reveg-catalog.tamu.edu

Equipment — http://www.nsl.fs.fed.us/great_basin_native_plants.html

Mats — www.newparkmats.com

Electric fence — www.hcam.net

SpiderPlow — www.spiderplowinternational.com

Truax — http://www.truaxcomp.com/

Government

February 2013

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan
1518 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2006 Gold Book — http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/

best_management_practices/gold_book.html

BLM engineering drawings, roads & fences — http://www.blm.gov/nstc/eng/draw.html

BLM VRM — http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/

BLM NSTC — http://www.blm.gov/nstc/

EPA — http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ and http://www.blm.gov/bmp/

New Onshore Order #1, May 7-07 — http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/

edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-934.pdf

Wyoming BLM requirements — http://www.wy.blm.gov/minerals/og/

Wyoming Climate Atlas — http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/sco/climate_office.html

Wyoming DEQ — http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/nps/npspg.htm

NRCS fotog — http://efotg.nrcs.usda.gov/treemenuFS.aspx

Journals

American Society of Mining and Reclamation — http//dept.ca.uky.edu/asmr/W/

Global Restoration Network — www.globalrestorationnetwork.org

Journal Range Management archives — http://jrm.library.arizona.edu/jrm/

National Roadside Vegetation Management Association — http://www.nrvma.org

Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) — http://www.ser.org/

USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station publications — http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/rmrs/

Wyoming Native Plant Society — http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/wnps/plant_id.htm

Maps/GIS

Topo & aerial photos — http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=171:1:6176131719238320356

NRCS National Water and Climate Center — http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/wcc.html

Water Erosion Prediction project — http://octagon.nserl.purdue.edu/weppV1/

Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center — http://www.wygisc.uwyo.edu/

Mycorrhizae

http://mycorrhiza.ag.utk.edu/default.html

http://invam.caf.wvu.edu/index.html

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2003/030205.htm

Oil/Gas

Completion and workover wastes — http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/oil/w&c.pdf

Dust suppression — http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/Stevenson/Dust%20Manual%20%20102704.pdf

Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking or Frac Job) — http://www.earthworksaction.org/pubs/DrinkingWaterAtRisk.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/cbmstudy/pdfs/completestudy/ch4_6-8-04.pdf

National LTAP & TTAP Rural Roads — http://www.ltapt2.org/resources/ruralresources.php

Oil & Gas Production wastes — http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/oil/oil-gas.pdf

Power lines — http://www.aplic.org/

Produced water — http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/PDFS/2006-Produced-Water-Guidebook.pdf

The T2/LTAP Center University of Wyoming — http://wwweng.uwyo.edu/wyt2/

Western Governors CBM BMPs — http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/coalbed/CoalBedMethane.pdf

Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission requirements — http://wogcc.state.wy.us/

Restoration Handbooks

Bags Quiet Presence NRCS — http://www.wy.nrcs.usda.gov/Plant/tech_notices.html

Dryland pastures — http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/pubs/eb19.pdf

Handbook of Western Reclamation Techniques — http://cbmcc.org/intro06.pdf

Restoring Western Ranges and Wild lands — http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr136.html

Solid Minerals reclamation handbook — http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/fy01/ib2001-081attach.pdf

Scientific Literature

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1519

An Introduction to using native plants in Restoration — http://www.wy.nrcs.usda.gov/Plant/tech_notices.html

Geology and Plant life — http://www.wy.nrcs.usda.gov/Plant/tech_notices.html

Managing Arid and semi-arid watersheds — http://www.wy.blm.gov/botany/wyspecies.htm

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/oil.html

Revegetation Abstracts — http://www.wy.nrcs.usda.gov/Plant/tech_notices.html

Sagebrush — http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/sage_grouse_documents.htm

Salt tolerant plants — http://www.ussl.ars.usda.gov/pls/caliche/Halophyte.query

USDA Plant database — http://plants.usda.gov/

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database — http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/

Wyoming Plant Materials Technical notes — http://www.wy.nrcs.usda.gov/Plant/tech_notices.html

Wyoming Reclamation and Restoration Center — http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/WRRC/

Seed Sources

Guidebook to Great Basin seeds —

http://www.id.blm.gov/techbuls/05_04/entiredoc.pdf

http://www.graniteseed.com/

http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/seedlab/default.htm

http://www.windriverseed.com/

http://www.pawneebuttesseed.com/

http://www.westernnativeseed.com/

http://www.avseeds.com/company.cfm

native@rmnativeplants.com

www.graniteseedcom

Native Plant Propagation Protocols — http://www.nativeplants.for.uidaho.edu/network

Native Seed Network — http://www.nativeseednetwork.org/index

Oregon state Seed Lab - quality testing of native seed — www.seedlab.oscs.oregonstate.edu

Seed testing protocols — http://wwwaosaseed.com/reference.htm

Snow Fence

http://www.snow-snake.com/

Soil

Glossary of Soil Science Terms — https://www.soils.org/sssagloss/?check

NRCS Web Soil Survey —

http://www.wy.nrcs.usda.gov/Plant/tech_notices.html

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/index.html

NRCS Soil Quality Publications — http://www.wy.nrcs.usda.gov/Plant/tech_notices.html

Soil series name search — http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/cgi-bin/osd/osdnamequery.cgi

Weeds

Halogeton — http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:jIdL39NFvUEJ:wfrc.usgs.gov/pubs/journalpdf/

dudabiolfertilsoils.pdf+halogeton+competition&hl=en

Weed Science Society of America — http://www.wssa.net

TNC Invasive species (weeds) — http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/control.html

Wildlife

Important Wildlife Habitats — http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/og.pdf

Sage grouse range wide forum links: http://sagegrouse.ecr.gov/?link=110

Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within

Crucial and Important Habitats — http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/doc/

O&G%20Recommendations%20April%202010%20with%20changes%20identified.pdf

E. Participants

BLM

● Adrienne Pilmanis

● Bill Lanning

● Eldon Allison

● Rebecca Sprugin

● Skip Stonesifer

● Tom Lahti

February 2013

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan
1520 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

BLM Contractor

● Steve Moore

BP America Production Company

● Gary Austin

Coalition of Local Governments

● David Allison

● Jean Dickinson

● Mary Thoman

● Tim Morrison

CSR

● Steven Paulsen

Department of Agriculture

● Chris Wichmann

Wyoming DEQ

● Carol Bilbrough

● Mark Conrad

Devon

● Bill Skelton

● Craig Goodrich

● Dru Bower Moore

● Nick Agopian

● Randy Bolles

Wyoming Governor’s Planning Office

● Steve Furtney

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

● Mary Flanderka

UW Reclamation and Restoration Center

● Peter D. Stahl

● Stephen Williams

Appendix G Example Detailed, Multi-phased,

Reclamation Plan February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1521

Appendix H. Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices

Adverse environmental impacts associated with development can be avoided, reduced, or

mitigated through the project’s design and implementation. In order to provide regulatory

certainty that the measures will be incorporated, they must be required of every project. The

National Technical Team (NTT) report identified management actions and practices that would

reduce adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse if mandated to development throughout either Core

Area (priority habitat) or occupied greater sage-grouse habitat or general habitat areas. Some

of these practices are incorporated in Alternative D as being universally appropriate. The ones

that could be analyzed on a planning area-wide basis have been made a part of the management

actions and in this appendix as Required Design Features.

Other environmental protection measures could not be analyzed in a resource area-wide

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because their appropriateness depends upon site-specific

issues such as proximity to the boundary of Core Area or non-crucial habitat or engineering or

physical limitations such as an oil and gas producing zone being too close to the surface to be

recoverable through directional drilling. These best management practices (BMPs) are required to

be considered in a site-specific project’s design to reduce, prevent, or avoid adverse environmental

or social impacts. These practices are analyzed to help ensure that development is conducted in

an environmentally responsible manner. Some BMPs are as simple as choosing a paint color that

helps oil and natural gas equipment blend with the natural surroundings, turning development

less visible. Other BMPs may reduce the amount of vegetation lost to development, improve the

speed of re-growth of desirable vegetation, or may reduce the amount of wildlife disturbance in

important habitats. Public land users are encouraged to review these practices, incorporate them

where appropriate, or develop better methods for achieving the same goal. However, the Bureau

of Land Management (BLM) may also require their incorporation into the design features of the

project as a Condition of Approval (COA). Only when the design feature is part of the BLM

authorization as a COA, should the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis of the

project analyze the beneficial impacts of the design feature. If the practice is only voluntary or

suggested, the BLM lacks the authority to require its implementation, so the project should be

analyzed as if the practice will not occur. The BLM authorization will make clear whether the

BMP is mandatory (attached as a COA) or merely encouraged.

NEPA analysis that concludes that BMPs should not be attached as mandatory COAs needs

to clearly explain why with relation to site-specific factors. The purpose of this section is not

to select certain practices or designs and require that only those be used. It is not possible to

evaluate all the known practices and make determinations as to which are best, particularly

without a specific project in a specific location. BMPs should be matched and adapted to meet

the site-specific requirements of the management action, project and local environment. No one

management practice is best suited to every site or situation, or will remain the most optimal

practice over time. BMPs must be adaptive and monitored regularly to evaluate effectiveness.

As discussed more fully in the Special Status Species-Wildlife section, protections for the greater

sage-grouse are an important focal point in the preparation of the Resource Management Plan

(RMP), in part because of the importance of the Lander habitat for the survival and recovery

of the species. Accordingly, a special section of BMPs identifies management that should be

considered in both greater sage-grouse Core Area and general greater sage-grouse habitat. It

February 2013

Appendix H Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices
1522 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

is expected that these BMPs will change over time as monitoring and further study develop

improved greater sage-grouse protections.

Required Design Features

The following design approaches are required for all projects unless the proponent establishes

that due to site limitations or engineering considerations, the design approaches are infeasible.

Economic considerations such as increased costs do not render a design infeasible.

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Required Design Features for All Projects:

The following measures, and others as they are identified, will be required for all BLM-authorized

development. As appropriate, they may be required as part of the design of the project or as a

mandatory COA. Other greater sage-grouse protections are identified below as BMPs which will

be evaluated on a site-specific basis for inclusion as a mandatory COA.

General:

● In applying protections for greater sage-grouse protections, all projects must evaluate (1)

whether the conservation measure is reasonable (see 43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]

3101.1‐2 for the definition of “reasonable” for fluid mineral leases) and consistent with valid

existing rights, and (2) whether the action is in conformance with the RMP. Each conservation

measure will be evaluated on a site-specific basis for likely effectiveness on a cost-benefit

basis.

● In Core Area, where development would result in the long-term loss of greater sage-grouse

habitat, identify effective mitigation that will be applied for a sufficient term as to constitute

replacement habitat. Example: Purchase private land and mineral rights in the priority area

and deed to the United States, or obtain a conservation easement in perpetuity. Consider

compensatory mitigation and monitoring of significant direct, indirect, and cumulative

impacts on, and loss of habitat for greater sage-grouse.

● When additional mitigation is necessary, conduct it in Core Area in the same greater

sage-grouse population area. If Core Area does not provide appropriate mitigation, conduct

offsite mitigation in general greater sage‐grouse habitat with the ability to increase greater

sage‐grouse populations.

● Designate a qualified biologist who will be responsible for overseeing compliance with all

design features related to the protection of ecological resources throughout all project phases,

particularly in areas requiring avoidance or containing concentrated greater sage-grouse

populations. This person shall be approved by the BLM.

Facilities and Surface Disturbance:

● Give overall consideration to minimizing the adverse impact to greater sage-grouse through a

project design that avoids, minimizes, reduces, rectifies, and/or adequately compensates for

direct and indirect impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat or use. Apply a phased development

approach with concurrent interim reclamation. Locate and design individual project facilities

to minimize disruption of animal movement patterns and connectivity of habitats.

● Subject to topographic and other environmental constraints, require development for a project

wholly or partially in Core Area to be placed in the area least harmful to greater sage-grouse

based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat features.

● Co-locate new development (facilities, pipelines, etc.) in existing disturbances or in areas

where reclamation success has not been fully achieved unless the proponent establishes that

this is technically unfeasible. Cluster disturbances, operations (hydraulic fracture stimulation,

Appendix H Required Design Features and Best

Management Practices February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1523

liquids gathering, etc.), and facilities. Co-locate powerlines, flowlines, and small pipelines

under or immediately adjacent to existing roads. Design or site permanent structures to

minimize impacts to greater sage‐grouse, with emphasis on locating and operating facilities

that create movement (e.g., pump jacks) or attract frequent human use and vehicular traffic

(e.g., fluid storage tanks) in a manner to minimize disturbance of greater sage-grouse or

interference with habitat use.

● Locate new compressor stations outside priority habitats and require a design that reduces

noise directed toward priority habitat unless the proponent can establish that this requirement

would preclude development of the lease.

● Properly contain and promptly remove refuse to avoid attracting predators.

● Use mats for drilling activities where topography permits to reduce vegetation disturbance,

and as temporary roads between closely spaced wells to reduce soil compaction and maintain

soil structure to increase likelihood of vegetation reestablishment.

● Restrict the construction of tall facilities, distribution powerlines, fences, and other

infrastructure to the minimum number and amount needed. Place facilities such as tanks,

which could serve as greater sage-grouse predator perches, outside of Core Area unless the

proponent establishes that this technically is unfeasible. Equip tanks and other aboveground

facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of ravens and raptors.

● Site and/or minimize linear features to reduce disturbance and fragmentation of greater

sage-grouse habitats.

● Install greater sage-grouse safe fences around sumps, pits, and other trenching.

● Evaluate whether the benefits to greater sage-grouse from burying powerlines would outweigh

the potential loss of habitat from the disturbance associated with burying the line, considering

the potential threat from invasive nonnative species (INNS), low reclamation potential, and

other factors. If the benefits outweigh potential adverse impacts, require that the powerlines

be buried unless the applicant establishes that burying the lines is not technically feasible.

● Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities, where applicable, and develop a

plan to reduce vehicular traffic and human presence.

● Properly contain and promptly remove refuse to avoid attracting predators.

● Cover all fluid-containing pits and open tanks with netting (maximum 1.5-inch mesh size).

● Locate all residential development for employees and contractors (“man camps”) outside

of Core Area.

Reclamation:

● Where native shrubs located on lands proposed to be disturbed are unique and desirable

for interim and final reclamation purposes, and the seed supply for these desirable brush

species is not commercially available, seeds will be collected from the area and stored using

the procedures of the Seeds of Success program. Seedlings or plugs of common dominant

species will be propagated, preferably locally, in preparation for use in portions of area to be

reclaimed to expedite vegetation recovery.

● Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads and well pads, including

reshaping, topsoiling, and revegetating cut-and-fill slopes.

● Identify areas of sustainable plant communities and populations appropriate for the project

as sources for native plant material and manage for use in reclamation and restoration work.

Prioritize native seed allocation for use in priority greater sage‐grouse habitat in years when

preferred native seed is in short supply.

● Utilize enhanced reclamation if needed to support more rapid interim and final reclamation

including irrigation, mulching, soil amendments, and erosion blankets.

February 2013

Appendix H Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices
1524 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● When reseeding, use appropriate seed mixes and consider the use of appropriate subspecies of

sagebrush seed. Continue to evaluate seed mixtures over time, considering potential changes

in climate (Miller et al. 2011) when proposing seedings using native plants. Consider seed

collections from the warmer component within a species’ current range for selection of native

seed (Kramer and Havens 2009).

● Include reclamation or post-fire restoration objectives requiring that greater sage‐grouse

habitat needs are adequately addressed, and monitoring protocol to verify that the objectives

are accomplished. Include greater sage‐grouse habitat parameters as defined by Connelly et

al. (2000), Hagen et al. (2007), or if available, state greater sage‐grouse conservation plans

and appropriate local information in habitat restoration objectives. Make maintaining these

objectives in priority greater sage‐grouse habitat areas a high restoration priority.

● Identify and work with partners to increase native seed availability and work with plant

material centers to develop new plant materials, especially the forbs needed to restore greater

sage-grouse habitat.

● Choose native plant seeds for vegetation treatments based on availability, adaptation (site

potential), probability for success, and the vegetation management objectives for the area

covered by the treatment. Prioritize native seed allocation for use in Core Area in years

when preferred native seed is in short supply.

● Make reestablishment of sagebrush and desirable understory plant cover (relative to ecological

site potential) a high priority for restoration efforts. Write specific vegetation objectives to

reestablish sagebrush cover and desirable understory cover.

● Implement interim reclamation as soon as feasible for all disturbed soils to the side of

roadways and other long-term disturbances, reducing the disturbance to the smallest area

possible.

● Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to the pre‐disturbance landforms and desired

plant community.

● Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads and well pads, including

reshaping, topsoiling, and revegetating cut-and-fill slopes.

Impoundment Pond Design:

● Identify permanent ponds so as to reduce the number of newly flooded sites, which have high

productivity for mosquitoes. Avoid flooding flat terrain or low-lying areas.

● Design impoundment ponds to reduce attraction to breeding mosquitoes while considering

attraction to other vectors of diseases such as blue tongue disease. Design parameters should

include steepness of sides, avoidance of shallows less than 2 feet (60 centimeters), and

reduction of rooted vegetation (both aquatic and uplands).

● Separate inflow and outflow areas to produce open water; avoid creating wetlands.

● Avoid down slope seepage or overflow (including from natural drainage). Line constructed

ponds as necessary to avoid seepage. Prevent shallow surface inflow and accumulation of

sediment that promotes aquatic vegetation through piping discharge into open water and

lining channels.

● Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock, and construct the spillway with steep sides to

preclude the accumulation of shallow water and vegetation.

● Fence pond sites to restrict access by livestock and other wild ungulates that trample and

disturb shorelines, enrich sediments with manure, and create hoof print pockets of water

that are attractive to breeding mosquitoes.

Roads:

Appendix H Required Design Features and Best

Management Practices February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1525

● Locate roads to avoid important habitats for greater sage-grouse and other wildlife. Construct,

improve, and maintain access roads to minimize potential wildlife/vehicle collisions and

facilitate wildlife movement through the project area.

● Apply dust abatement on roads, well pads, and other surface disturbances. Use of dust

abatement with limited adverse impacts to vegetation, cultural resources, water quality, and

other resources.

● When responding to a request for a road, develop a transportation plan on a landscape scale so

as to consider all parties who will be authorized to use the road.

● Limit route construction to realignments of existing designated routes if that realignment has a

minimal impact on greater sage‐grouse habitat, eliminates the need to construct a new road,

or is necessary for motorist safety.

● Identify measures to reduce the use of motorized vehicles to reduce adverse impacts to

wildlife.

● Design roads to minimize total disturbance to the smallest amount possible and to the lowest

standard while meeting road objectives or purpose including safety. Establish speed limits

that will reduce vehicle speed to reduce greater sage-grouse mortality.

● If road crossings of linear water features (such as ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial

streams) cannot be avoided, construct crossings to minimize impacts to the riparian-wetlands

habitat. Usually this will mean crossing the feature at right angles. Temporary, portable

bridges should be considered.

● Limit the use of new roads associated with development including not making it part of the

public road network or implementing seasonal closures. Restrict motorized vehicle use to

authorized users using signage, gates, and other devices.

● Establish slow speed limits on BLM-administered roads or design roads for slower vehicle

speeds to reduce greater sage-grouse mortality and other wildlife conflicts.

● During travel management implementation, close and rehabilitate duplicate roads and

rights-of-way (ROWs) no longer being utilized. When restoring original landform and

establishing desirable vegetation, use appropriate seed mixtures or transplants as provided

above and in Appendix D (p. 1477). Identify roads where the risk of vehicle or human‐caused

wildfires and the spread of invasive species into greater sage-grouse habitats could be

minimized by planting perennial vegetation (e.g., green‐strips) paralleling road ROWs (this

BMP could be applied to BLM linear ROW authorizations).

Fire:

● Locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., base camps, spike camps, drop points, staging

areas, and heli‐bases) in areas where physical disturbance to greater sage‐grouse habitat can

be minimized. These include disturbed areas, grasslands, near roads/trails, or in other areas

where there is existing disturbance or minimal sagebrush cover.

● Develop state‐specific greater sage‐grouse reference information and resource materials

containing maps, a list of resource advisors, contact information, local guidance, and other

relevant information. Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack incident

commanders for use in prioritizing wildfire suppression resources and designing suppression

tactics.

● Where applicable, utilize retardant and mechanized equipment to minimize burned acreage in

Core Area during an extended attack.

● As safety allows, conduct mop‐up where the black adjoins unburned islands, dog legs, or other

habitat features to minimize sagebrush loss.

● Minimize unnecessary cross‐country vehicle travel during fire operations in greater

sage‐grouse habitat.

February 2013

Appendix H Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices
1526 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Prior to the fire season, provide greater sage-grouse training to resource advisors.

● Vegetation treatment: Power‐wash all vehicles and equipment involved in vegetation

treatment activities prior to entering the area to minimize the introduction of undesirable

and/or invasive plant species.

Vegetation Treatment and Fuels Management:

● Design vegetation treatments in areas of high wildfire frequency to facilitate firefighter and

public safety; reduce the risk of extreme fire behavior; and reduce the risk and rate of fire

spread to greater sage-grouse habitats while facilitating the restoration of key habitats.

● Design fuels treatment objectives to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify fire

behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns that most benefit greater

sage-grouse habitat.

● Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on greater sage-grouse biology, habitat

requirements, and identification of areas utilized locally.

● Use fire prescriptions that minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize

mortality of desirable perennial plant species and reduce risk of hydrophobicity).

● Incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into fuel-break design.

● Power wash all vehicles and equipment involved in fuels management activities prior to

entering the area to minimize the introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species.

● Outside of priority habitat, give priority for implementing sagebrush restoration projects

that are adjacent to priority habitat.

● As funding and logistics permit, restore habitat to a species composition characterized by

perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

● Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15 percent within a treatment polygon

unless a vegetation management objective requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to

meet strategic protection of priority greater sage‐grouse habitat and conserve habitat quality

for the species.

● Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with interdisciplinary input from BLM and

state wildlife agency biologists, and that treatment acreage is conservative in the context of

surrounding greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats and landscape.

● In suitable greater sage-grouse habitat, the priority for vegetation treatments are those that

conserve, enhance, or restore greater sage‐grouse habitat, reduce fuels at strategic locations

to minimize the size of wildfires and to limit loss of greater sage-grouse habitat. Remove

conifers where they have encroached upon greater sage-grouse habitat. Reduce the density of

conifers that have encroached into, but do not yet dominate, sagebrush plant communities.

● Minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize mortality of desirable

plant species and reduce risk of hydrophobicity). Incorporate vegetation treatment standard

operating procedures, such as those outlined in the 17 Western States Vegetation Programmatic

EIS (PEIS), into treatments (BLM 2007c).

● Ensure that treatments are configured in a manner (e.g., strips) that promotes use by greater

sage‐grouse.

● Reestablish appropriate sagebrush species/subspecies and important understory plants relative

to site potential. Identify priority plant species and collect seed of understory plants and

sagebrush subspecies important to greater sage-grouse. Establish seed harvest areas that are

managed for seed production and are a priority for protection from outside disturbances.

● Design vegetation treatments in greater sage-grouse habitats to strategically reduce wildfire

threats in the greatest area. This could involve spatially arranging new vegetation treatments

with past treatments, vegetation with fire-resistant serial stages, natural barriers, and roads to

Appendix H Required Design Features and Best

Management Practices February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1527

constrain fire spread and growth. This could require vegetation treatments to be implemented

in a more linear versus block design.

● Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 100 meters of occupied greater

sage‐grouse leks and other habitats (e.g., nesting, wintering, and brood-rearing) to reduce the

availability of perch sites for avian predators.

● Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, infrastructure corridors,

and recreation areas.

● Strategically place and maintain pretreated strips/areas (e.g., mowing, prescribed fire,

herbicide application, and strictly managed grazed strips) to aid in controlling wildfire should

wildfire occur near key habitats or important restoration areas (such as where investments in

restoration have already been made).

Mineral Development:

● Give overall consideration to impacts to greater sage-grouse in applying technically feasible

COAs. Selection and application of these measures shall be based on current science and

research on the effects to important breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas.

The Plan of Development or Plan of Operations, as applicable, shall address, at a minimum,

the anticipated noise, density and amount of disturbance, mechanical movement (e.g., pump

jacks), permanent and temporary facilities, traffic, phases of development over time, offsite

mitigation, and expected periods of use associated with the proposed project. The NEPA

analysis and authorization should identify seasonal habitats or typical project features related

to potential greater sage-grouse impacts, such as drill mats that are not made a part of the

COA, based on site-specific or project-specific considerations and the explanation of why

these protections were not included.

● Where feasible, co-locate new development (facilities, pipelines, etc.) in existing disturbances.

Cluster disturbances, operations (hydraulic fracture stimulation, liquids gathering, etc.), and

facilities. Use drilling techniques to reduce surface disturbance in relation to the number of

wells, where feasible. Place liquid-gathering facilities and compressor stations outside Core

Area, unless the proponent can establish that this requirement would preclude development of

the lease. Identify measures to reduce traffic in Core Area.

● To ensure comprehensive planning relative to greater sage-grouse conflicts, complete Master

Development Plans or Plans of Development during planning and review of projects involving

multiple proposed disturbances in Core Area.

● In Core Area, require closed‐loop systems for drilling operations, with no reserve pits unless

technically unfeasible.

● Require noise shields or other noise abatement devices when drilling during the lek, nesting,

brood-rearing, and wintering seasons. Locate new compressor stations outside of Core Area if

feasible, and require a design directed toward priority habitat that reduces noise.

Miscellaneous:

● Identify areas where acquisitions (including subsurface mineral rights) or conservation

easements, would benefit greater sage‐grouse habitat. Apply acquisition and disposal criteria

from Appendix R (p. 1623).

Best Management Practices

The following sources contain information regarding the development and implementation of

BMPs. These references are not to be considered as exclusive sources of information; rather,

they should be used as a starting point when evaluating specific BMPs during project design

and implementation.

February 2013

Appendix H Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices
1528 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Bureau of Land Management Best Management Practices Resources

BLM BMPs: This website provides an introduction to BLM BMPs with links to BLM

contacts, specific resources, and other BMP links, and other resources related to BLM BMPs.

http://www.blm.gov/bmp/

See also http://www.oilandgasbmps.org/

General Information for Oil and Gas BMPs: This resource provides general

information regarding BLM BMPs for oil and gas development. A sample of

BMPs are provided with a brief description of types of BMPs and terminology.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/

general_information.html

BMP Frequently Asked Questions: The link below provides responses to frequently

asked questions regarding BLM BMPs.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/

frequently_asked_questions.html

BMP Technical Information: The slide shows at the link below provide a detailed look

at a menu of possible oil and natural gas development BMPs. These slide shows are

only a starting point and are not intended to serve as a comprehensive list of BMPs.

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/fy05/im2005-069.htm

Oil and Gas Exploration – The Gold Book: The publication Surface Operating Standards and

Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (commonly referred to as The Gold

Book) was developed to assist operators by providing information on the requirements for

obtaining permit approval and conducting environmentally responsible oil and gas operations on

federal lands and on private surface over federal minerals (split-estate). Split-estate surface owners

will also find the Gold Book to be a useful reference guide. In 2007, the Gold Book was updated

to incorporate changes resulting from the new Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 regulations.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/

gold_book.html

Visual Resources: There are numerous design techniques that can be used to reduce

the visual impacts from surface-disturbing projects. The techniques described

here should be used in conjunction with BLM’s visual resource contrast rating

process wherein both the existing landscape and the proposed development or

activity are analyzed for their basic elements of form, line, color, and texture.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/Recreation/recreation_national/RMS/3.html

Renewable Energy Development BMPs: The following resources provide information on BMPs

related to renewable energy development.

● Wind Energy Development PEIS: The scope of the Wind Energy PEIS analysis

includes an assessment of the beneficial and adverse environmental, social,

and economic impacts; discussion of relevant mitigation measures to address

these impacts; and identification of appropriate, programmatic policies and

BMPs to be included in the proposed Wind Energy Development Program.

http://windeis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/index.cfm

Appendix H Required Design Features and Best

Management Practices February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1529

● BLM Instruction Memorandum [IM] 2009-043, Rights-of-Way, Wind Energy:

This IM further clarifies the BLM Wind Energy Development policies and BMPs

provided in the Wind Energy Development PEIS.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/

national_instruction/2009/IM_2009-043.html

● Record of Decision for the Geothermal Resource Leasing PEIS: This Record of Decision

provides a list of sample BMPs that have been collected from various BLM and United

States Forest Service documents addressing geothermal and fluid mineral leasing and

development, including RMPs, forest plans, and environmental reports for geothermal

leasing and development. The document provides guidance on incorporating BMPs,

as appropriate, into the geothermal permit application or as Conditions of Approval.

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/

MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/geothermal_eis/

final_programmatic.Par.90935.File.dat/ROD_Geothermal_12-17-08.pdf

● Solar Energy Development PEIS: This PEIS was issued July 24, 2012. Its

policies and mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed solar energy

deployment program. The Solar Energy Development PEIS identifies for those

that work in the solar industry, and stakeholders the best practices for deploying

solar energy and ensuring minimal impact to natural and cultural resources

on BLM-administered lands or other federal, state, tribal, or private lands.

http://www.solareis.anl.gov/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) BMP Resources

Healthy Watersheds: This resource provides conservation approaches and tools designed to

ensure healthy watersheds remain intact. The website provides example approaches that are

generally site-specific, and watershed managers are encouraged to use the examples as guidance

in developing local conservation strategies. The website also supplies outreach strategies to

encourage stakeholder engagement in conservation and protection of healthy watersheds.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/

Storm Water BMPs: This online menu provides BMPs designed to meet the minimum

requirements for six control measures specified by the EPA’s Phase II Stormwater Program.

The control measures include public education, public involvement, illicit discharge detection

and elimination, construction, post-construction, and pollution prevention/good housekeeping.

The menu also provides case studies assessing the performance of various storm water BMPs.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/menu.cfm

Pasture, Rangeland, and Grazing Operations BMPs: The link below provides BMPs

compiled by the EPA to prevent or reduce pollution associated with livestock grazing.

Topics include practices to reduce methane production, managing nonpoint source pollution,

controlled grazing, reducing animal feeding operation pollution, and manure management.

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/anprgbmp.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) BMP Resources

National Conservation Practice Standards: This website provides links for national conservation

practices developed by the NRCS on topics such as herbaceous wind barriers, feed management,

February 2013

Appendix H Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices
1530 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

forest stand improvement, and irrigation management. The conservation practice standard contains

information on why and where the practice is applied, and sets forth the minimum quality criteria

that must be met during the application of that practice in order for it to achieve itsintended purpose.

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/Standards/nhcp.html

National Range and Pasture Handbook: Developed by NRCS grazing land specialists,

this handbook provides a source of expertise to guide cooperators in solving resource

problems and in sustaining or improving their grazing lands resources and operations.

http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/publications/nrph.html

Wyoming Game and Fish Department BMP Resources

Aquatic Invasive Species: This resource provides information about how to

recognize aquatic invasive species and how to avoid introducing them or spreading

them through Wyoming's waters. The website contains links to external resources

including a link to waterbodies in the United States currently known to be impacted

by zebra and quagga mussels. The website also contains information about how to

decontaminate equipment and watercraft suspected of harboring aquatic invasive species.

http://gf.state.wy.us/fish/AIS/index.asp

Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Important

Wildlife Habitats: This document provides recommendations for mitigation and

management options that development companies and resource agencies can

implement to minimize impacts to wildlife from oil and gas development.

http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/

HABITAT_OILGASRECOMMENDATIONS0000333.pdf

Wildlife Protection Recommendations for Wind Energy Development in

Wyoming: This document provides recommendations for BMPs, avoidance,

monitoring, research, and mitigation opportunities for developers and resource

agencies to minimize impacts to wildlife from wind-energy development.

http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/

WINDENERGY_WILDLIFEPROTECTION0000703.pdf

Forestry Best Management Practices

Wyoming Forestry Best Management Practices: This document providesrecommendationsfor protecting water quality and forestsoils. Some of the BMPs outlined in this document are listed below.

http://slf-web.state.wy.us/oldsite/forestry/bmp2.aspx

Road Construction and Maintenance: The need for higher-standard roads can be alleviated

through temporary road blockage, locked gate management, and seasonal weather restrictions.

Number of Roads, Existing Roads: Minimize the number of roads constructed in a watershed

through comprehensive road planning, recognizing intermingled ownership and foreseeable future

uses to avoid the creation of sediment, change of water temperature, or addition of unwanted

nutrients. Use existing roads where practical, unless use of such roads would cause or aggravate

an erosion problem. When using existing roads, reconstruct only to the extent necessary to

provide adequate drainage and safety; avoid disturbing stable road surfaces.

Road Design and Implementation: Fit the road to the topography by locating roads on natural

benches and following natural contours. Locate roads on stable geology, including well-drained

Appendix H Required Design Features and Best

Management Practices February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1531

soils and rock formations that tend to dip into the slope. Avoid slumps and slide-prone areas

characterized by steep slopes, toe slopes, natural drainage channels, highly weathered bedrock,

clay beds, concave slopes, and hummocky topography, and rock layers that dip parallel to the

slope. Avoid wet areas, including moisture-laden or unstable toe slopes, seeps, wetlands, wet

meadows and natural drainage channels. Minimize earth-moving activities when soils appear

excessively wet.

Drainage: Design roads to minimize disruption of natural drainage patterns. Provide adequate

drainage, as part of the construction process, from the surface of all permanent and temporary

roads. Design, install, and route road surface drainage features at adequate spacing to control

erosion; steeper gradients require more frequent drainage features. Install road-drainage features

above stream crossings to route discharge into filtration zones before it enters a stream or

surface water. Use outsloped, insloped, or crowned roads and space road-drainage features so

peak drainage flow on the road surface or in ditches will not exceed capacity. Provide energy

dissipaters (rock piles, slash, log chunks, etc.) where necessary to reduce erosion at the outlet of

drainage features. Cross drains, culverts, water bars, dips, and other drainage structures should

not discharge onto erodible soils or fill slopes without outfall protection. Properly constructed

drain drips can be an economical method of road surface drainage. Construct drain dips deep

enough into the subgrade so that traffic will not obliterate them. Route road drainage through

adequate filtration zones or other sediment settling structures to ensure sediment does not reach

surface water.

Runoff/Erosion Control: Stabilize erodible, exposed soils by seeding, compacting, rip-rapping,

benching, mulching, or other suitable means prior to seasonal runoff. Prevent downslope

movement of sediment by using sediment catch basins, drop inlets, changes in road grade,

headwalls, or recessed cut slopes. Keep slope stabilization, erosion, and sediment control work

current with road construction. Complete or stabilize road selections within the same operating

season. Maintain erosion-control features through periodic inspection and maintenance, including

cleaning dips and cross drains, repairing ditches, marking culvert inlets to aid in location, and

clearing debris from culverts.

Debris and Excess Material Handling: Haul all excess material removed by maintenance

operations to safe disposal sites and stabilize these sites to prevent erosion. Avoid sidecasting and

place debris, overburden, and other waste materials associated with construction and maintenance

activities in a location to avoid entry into streams. Include these waste areas in soil stabilization

planning for the road. Minimize sediment production from borrow pits and gravel sources through

proper location, development, and reclamation.

Cut and Fill Slopes: This includes: construct cut and fill slopes at stable angles to prevent

sloughing and other subsequent erosion. Design roads to balance cuts and fills or use full bench

construction (no fill slope) where stable fill construction is not possible. Avoid incorporating

potentially unstable woody debris in the fill portion of the road prism. Where possible, leave

existing rooted trees or shrubs at the toe of the fill slope to stabilize the fill. At the toe of

potentially erodible fill slopes, particularly near stream channels, pile slash in a row parallel to the

road to trap sediment. When done concurrently with road construction, this is one method that

can effectively control sediment movement, and it can provide an economical way of disposing

of roadway slash. Limit the height, width, and length of “slash filter wind-rows” so wildlife

movement is not impeded. Sediment fabric fences or other methods may be used if effective.

February 2013

Appendix H Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices
1532 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Out/In Slopes: Outsloped roads provide a means of dispersing water in a low-energy flow from

the road surface. Outsloped roads are appropriate when fill slopes are stable, drainage will not

flow directly into stream channels, and transportation safety can be met. For insloped roads, plan

ditch gradients steep enough, generally greater than 2 percent but less than 8 percent, to prevent

sediment deposition and ditch erosion. The steeper gradients may be suitable for more stable

soils; use the lower gradients for less stable soils. Do not disturb roadside vegetation more than

necessary to maintain slope stability and serve traffic needs.

Weather Maintenance: Grade road surfaces only as often as necessary to maintain a stable

running surface and adequate surface drainage. Avoid cutting the toe of cut slopes when grading

roads, pulling ditches, or plowing snow. When plowing snow, provide breaks in the snow berm

to allow road drainage. Consider gates, barricades, or signs to limit use of roads during spring

breakup to other wet periods. Avoid using roads during wet periods if such use would likely

damage the road drainage features. When access requires crossing moist areas with a poor road

base, cross only when the ground is frozen or dry to alleviate a rutted, poorly drained road.

Upon completion of seasonal operations, ensure that drainage features are fully functional. The

road surface should be crowned, outsloped, insloped, or waterbarred. Remove berms from the

outside edge.

Ditch Culverts: For ditch relief culverts, construct catch basins with stable side slopes. Protect

the inflow end of cross drain culverts from plugging and armor if in erodible soil. Where possible,

install culverts at the gradient of the original ground slope; otherwise armor outlets with rock or

anchor downspouts to carry water safely across the fill slope. Skew ditch relief culverts 20 to 30

degrees toward the inflow from the ditch to help maintain proper function.

Stream Culverts: When using culverts to cross small streams, install those culverts to conform

to the natural stream bed and slope on all intermittent streams that support fish or that provide

seasonal fish passage. Ensure fish movement is not impeded by using culverts with a suitable

diameter for permanent stream crossings and during peak flows. Maintain a 1-foot minimum

cover for culverts 15 to 36 inches in diameter, and a cover of one-third diameter for larger culverts

to prevent crushing by traffic. Place culverts slightly below normal stream grade to avoid culvert

outfall barriers. Do not alter stream channels upstream from culverts, unless necessary to protect

fill or to prevent culvert blockage. Install culverts to prevent erosion of fill. Compact the fill

material to prevent seepage and failure. Armor the inlet and/or outlet with rock or other suitable

material where feasible. Consider dewatering stream-crossing sites during culvert installation.

This can be done with a temporary diversion channel or a sandbag dam with a pump diversion.

Stream Crossings: Minimize the number of road stream crossings and choose stable

stream-crossing sites. Minimize stream-channel disturbances and related sediment problems

during necessary construction of road and installation of stream-crossing structures. Whenever

possible, retain existing vegetation and organic material around stream crossings. Locate

temporary construction bypass roads where the stream course will have minimal disturbance.

Design stream crossings for adequate passage of fish (if present) and time construction activities

to have minimum impact on water quality and fisheries. Consider oversized pipe when debris

loading may pose problems. Ensure sizing provides adequate length to allow for depth of road

fill. Do not place erodible material into stream channels and remove stockpiled material from

high-water zones. Abutments and wingwalls should prevent material from spilling into the

stream. Avoid unimproved stream crossings. When a culvert or bridge is not feasible, locate

drive-through (ford) on a stable, rocky portion of the stream channel, such as a bedrock stream.

Appendix H Required Design Features and Best

Management Practices February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1533

Equipment Use: Avoid operation of wheeled or tracked equipment within isolated wetlands,

except when the ground is frozen. Tractor skid where compaction, displacement, and erosion will

be minimized. Avoid tractor or wheeled skidding on unstable wet or easily compacted soils.

Hazardous Substances/Weed and Pest Control: Know and comply with regulations governing

the storage, handling, application (including licensing of applicators), and disposal of hazardous

substances. Follow all label instructions. Develop a contingency plan for hazardous substance

spills, including cleanup procedures and notification of the state Department of Environmental

Quality (DEQ). A Spill Prevention and Countermeasures Plan is required by federal law for

storage of more than 1,320 gallons, and state law requires the reporting of spills over 25 gallons.

Integrated Approach: Use an integrated approach to weed and pest control, including manual,

biological, mechanical, preventative, and chemical means. To enhance effectiveness and prevent

transport into streams, apply chemicals during appropriate weather conditions (generally calm

and dry) and during the optimum time for control of the target pest or weed.

Prescribed Burning and Wildfire Suppression: Protect soil and water from prescribed burning

effects by maintaining soil productivity, minimizing erosion, and preventing ash, sediments,

nutrients and debris from entering surface water. After an intense wildfire or prescribed burn,

emergency rehabilitation may be necessary to minimize the loss of soil, prevent the deterioration

of water quality, and to mitigate threats to life and property. Stabilize all areas that have

significantly increased erosion potential or drainage patterns altered by suppression activities by

installing water bars and other drainage diversions in fire roads, fire lines, and other cleared areas,

seeding, planting, and fertilizing to provide vegetative cover, spreading slash or mulch to protect

bare soil, repairing road damage, and clearing stream channels of debris deposited by suppression

activities and scarification as necessary to encourage percolation on excessively burned soils.

BMPs for Water Resources

BMPs would be appropriate for consideration when proposed activities are within groundwater

zones 1-3, surface water zones 1-3, and sensitive aquifer systems identified through the use of the

Wyoming Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment Handbook, or similar document updated over

time. BMPs to mitigate impacts to water resources include, but are not limited to, the following:

● Use closed-loop drilling systems where technologically feasible.

● Reuse produced water for well completion activities and enhanced oil recovery operations

using water.

● Do not use evaporation ponds or reserve pits in proximity to shallow aquifers. Reduce reliance

on evaporation ponds in other locations and other forms of surface disposal.

● Line surface impoundment ponds (evaporation ponds or drilling pits) with synthetic liners and

subsequently decommission them by removing all contaminants and liners, and reclaiming

the area.

● Identify private water supply wells and implement appropriate protection measures for the

affected aquifer(s), as necessary to prevent the introduction of contaminants into the well

(e.g., site oil and gas wells at a distance necessary to prevent the introduction of contaminants

into the drinking water supply well, collect baseline water quality data from the water supply

well, etc.).

● Require a monitoring plan that includes collection of baseline and periodic water quality

data from potentially affected drinking water supply wells, identification of parameters to

monitor, reporting results to the BLM and well owners, and reporting to Wyoming DEQ any

February 2013

Appendix H Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices
1534 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

contaminant in groundwater exceeding Wyoming DEQ (or EPA) Class I drinking water

standards.

● Review the geology of shallow aquifers to determine well construction requirements, which

may include cementing to surface and drilling with a fresh water mud system.

● Require surface casing and cement to a specific formation or depth to protect aquifers at

depth that need protection.

● Set surface casing below the lower-most drinking water and set into a confining (e.g., shale)

layer.

● Set an intermediate string of casing and cement in the event of deep aquifers.

● Require submittal of a well logging plan and document submittal plan to ensure proper well

construction to protect groundwater.

● Review the geology of shallow aquifers in proximity to groundwater development activities to

determine potential impacts to flow patterns supporting water elements such as fen, wetlands,

springs, seeps, and ponds.

● Because of the age of the well or depth or other factor, require re-completions to comply with

state and federal standards for new well construction; analyze cement bond logs associated

with any existing well location within 1⁄4-mile of completing a new well or re-completing an

existing one; and identify how re-completed wells will be tested and monitored.

BMPs for Greater Sage-Grouse Protections

Knowledge of BMPs for greater sage-grouse protections is an evolving field. As research is

done on impacts of various kinds of activities, or the absence thereof, on greater sage-grouse,

additional protections will be identified. While some of these will be generic enough to be applied

planning area-wide, others will require site-specific analysis to determine if they are appropriate

for inclusion as a mandatory COA. This BMP section of this appendix will be supplemented as

technology and understanding of greater sage-grouse advance.

Appendix H Required Design Features and Best

Management Practices February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1535

Appendix I. Stipulations and Conditions of

Approval in Designated Development Areas

and in Non-Designated Development Areas

Conditions of Approval (COAs) and/or stipulations will be applied to surface-disturbing activities

related to oil and gas and right-of-way (ROW) actions in the Lander Field Office planning area.

Applicable wildlife timing limitation stipulation (TLS), controlled surface use (CSU), and

site-specific requirements will be included as COAs/stipulations according to federal regulations

and policies.

New oil and gas leases will have applicable wildlife TLS and CSU stipulations applied at

the leasing stage. For protection of greater sage-grouse, raptors, and other migratory birds

protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bureau of Land Management will apply

TLS and/or CSU COAs/stipulations for their protection on surface use authorizations within

designated development areas (DDAs). The need to apply COAs/stipulations for big game crucial

winter range and site-specific requirements in DDAs will be analyzed through the National

Environmental Policy Act process. Exceptions to the COAs/stipulations can be requested using

the process identified in Appendix E (p. 1483). Emergency and safety situations related to

operations and maintenance are exempt from the COAs/stipulations. Notification/reporting to the

Authorized Officer for these situations are subject to applicable rules and regulations.

Table I.1. Activities for Oil and Gas and ROW Operations, and Short-Term Operation and

Maintenance Activities Subject to COAs/Stipulations

Activities Entire Lander Field Office

All Preliminary Activities and/or Casual Use as Defined

by Regulations

COA/stipulation does not apply

All Site Construction COA/stipulation applies

All Drilling COA/stipulation applies

All Completion COA/stipulation applies

All Surface Facilities Installation Activities COA/stipulation applies

All Pipeline/Flow Line Installation COA/stipulation applies

Plug and Abandon Wells COA/stipulation applies

Reclamation COA/stipulation applies

New Soil-Disturbing Activities COA/stipulation applies

Short-Term Well and Oil and Gas-related ROW

Maintenance and Miscellaneous Activities

● Well pumper

● Inspections

● Minor facility repair (1-2 Days)

● Spill remediation

● Haul condensate and produced water

● Snow removal

● Weed control

● Written order/incident of non-compliance

remediation

● Production sales and measurements

COA/stipulation does not apply

COAs Conditions of Approval

ROW Right-of-way

February 2013

Appendix I Stipulations and Conditions of

Approval in Designated Development Areas and

in Non-Designated Development Areas
1536 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Wildlife TLS COAs/stipulations will not apply for long-term maintenance and operation activities

within DDAs unless otherwise identified. TLS and site-specific COAs/stipulations will be

applied to oil and gas and ROW maintenance and operation activities conducted outside of

DDAs where the activity could disturb wildlife during critical times of the year. Identified

non-emergency related maintenance and operation activities outside DDAs that could be

disruptive to wildlife during the breeding, nesting/birthing, and winter periods would be subject to

a TLS COA/stipulation. Table I.2, “Maintenance and Operation Activities for Oil and Gas and

ROW Operations Outside DDAs Subject to COAs/Stipulations” (p. 1536), identifies the activities

that would be subject to the TLS COA/stipulation.

Table I.2. Maintenance and Operation Activities for Oil and Gas and ROW Operations

Outside DDAs Subject to COAs/Stipulations

Activities Designated Development Areas Outside of Designated Development

Areas

Other Well and Oil and

Gas-related ROW Maintenance

and Miscellaneous Activities*

● Replace and install production

facilities

● Routine road maintenance

● Excavate temporary flare and

completion pit

● Replace pipelines and flowline

within lease/unit

● Workover/recompletion/

downhole maintenance

● General routine maintenance

activities within lease/unit

COA/stipulation does not apply COA/stipulation applies

● Removing or replacing utility

poles or facilities

● General routine maintenance

activities

● Restringing powerlines

● Routine communication site

maintenance

● Repair/replace pipelines

COA/stipulation applied on

case-by-case basis

COA/stipulation applies

*Operation and maintenance activities described are not related to emergency and safety

situations, but are considered routine actions.

COAs Conditions of Approval

ROW Right-of-way

Appendix I Stipulations and Conditions of

Approval in Designated Development Areas and in

Non-Designated Development Areas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1537

Appendix J. Wyoming Standards for

Healthy Rangelands

Introduction

According to the Department of the Interior’s final rule for grazing administration, effective

August 21, 1995, the Wyoming Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Director is responsible

for the development of standards for healthy rangelands and guidelines for livestock grazing

management on 18 million acres of Wyoming’s public rangelands. The development and

application of these standards and guidelines are to achieve the four fundamentals of rangeland

health outlined in the grazing regulations (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 4180.1). Those

four fundamentals are: (1) watersheds are functioning properly; (2) water, nutrients, and energy

are cycling properly; (3) water quality meets State standards; and (4) habitat for special status

species is protected.

Standards address the health, productivity, and sustainability of the BLM-administered public

rangelands and represent the minimum acceptable conditions for the public rangelands. The

standards apply to all resource uses on public lands. Their application will be determined as

use-specific guidelines are developed. Standards are synonymous with goals and are observed on

a landscape scale. They describe healthy rangelands rather than important rangeland by-products.

The achievement of a standard is determined by measuring appropriate indicators. An indicator is

a component of a system whose characteristics (e.g., presence, absence, quantity, and distribution)

can be measured based on sound scientific principles.

Guidelines provide for, and guide the development and implementation of, reasonable,

responsible, and cost-effective management practices at the grazing allotment and watershed

level. The guidelines in this document apply specifically to livestock grazing management

practices on the BLM-administered public lands. These management practices will either

maintain existing desirable conditions or move rangelands toward statewide standards within

reasonable timeframes. Appropriate guidelines will ensure that the resultant management

practices reflect the potential for the watershed, consider other uses and natural influences, and

balance resource goals with social, cultural/historic, and economic opportunities to sustain viable

local communities. Guidelines, like standards, apply statewide.

Quantifiable resource objectives and specific management practices to achieve the standards will

be developed at the BLM Field Office level and will consider all reasonable and practical options

available to achieve desired results on a watershed or grazing allotment scale. The objectives

shall be reflected in site-specific activity or implementation plans as well as in livestock grazing

permits/leases for the public lands. Interdisciplinary activity or implementation plans will be used

to maintain or achieve the Wyoming standards for healthy rangelands. These plans may be

developed formally or informally through mechanisms available and suited to local needs (such

as Coordinated Resource Management [CRM] efforts).

The development and implementation of standards and guidelines will enable on-the-ground

management of the public rangelands to maintain a clear and responsible focus on both the

health of the land and its dependent natural and human communities. This development and

implementation will ensure that any mechanisms currently being employed or that may be

developed in the future will maintain a consistent focus on these essential concerns.

February 2013

Appendix J Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands
1538 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

These standards and guidelines are compatible with BLM’s three-tiered land use planning process.

The first tier includes the laws, regulations, and policies governing BLM’s administration and

management of the public lands and their uses. The previously mentioned fundamentals of

rangeland health specified in 43 CFR 4180.1, the requirement for BLM to develop these state (or

regional) standards and guidelines, and the standards and guidelines themselves, are part of this

first tier. Also part of this first tier are the specific requirements of various federal laws and the

objectives of 43 CFR 4100.2 that require BLM to consider the social and economic well-being of

the local communities in its management process.

These standards and guidelines will provide for statewide consistency and guidance in the

preparation, amendment, and maintenance of BLM land use plans, which represent the second tier

of the planning process. The BLM land use plans provide general allocation decisions concerning

the kinds of resource and land uses that can occur on the BLM administered public lands, where

they can occur, and the types of conditional requirements under which they can occur. In general,

the standards will be the basis for development of planning area-specific management objectives

concerning rangeland health and productivity, and the guidelines will direct development of

livestock grazing management actions to help accomplish those objectives.

The third tier of the BLM planning process, activity or implementation planning, is directed by

the applicable land use plan and, therefore, by the standards and guidelines. The standards and

guidelines, as BLM statewide policy, will also directly guide development of the site-specific

objectives and the methods and practices used to implement the land use plan decisions.

Activity or implementation plans contain objectives which describe the site-specific conditions

desired. Grazing permits/leases for the public lands contain terms and conditions which describe

specific actions required to attain or maintain the desired conditions. Through monitoring and

evaluation, the BLM, grazing permittees, and other interested parties determine if progress is

being made to achieve activity plan objectives.

Wyoming rangelands support a variety of uses which are of significant economic importance to

the state and its communities. These uses include oil and gas production, mining, recreation and

tourism, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, and livestock grazing. Rangelands also provide

amenities which contribute to the quality of life in Wyoming such as open spaces, solitude, and

opportunities for personal renewal. Wyoming’s rangelands should be managed with consideration

of the state’s historical, cultural, and social development and in a manner which contributes

to a diverse, balanced, competitive, and resilient economy in order to provide opportunity for

economic development. Healthy rangelands can best sustain these uses.

To varying degrees, BLM management of the public lands and resources plays a role in the social

and economic well-being of Wyoming communities. The National Environmental Policy Act

(part of the above-mentioned first planning tier) and various other laws and regulations mandate

the BLM to analyze the socioeconomic impacts of actions occurring on public rangelands. These

analyses occur during the environmental analysis process of land use planning (second planning

tier), where resource allocations are made, and during the environmental analysis process of

activity or implementation planning (third planning tier). In many situations, factors that affect

the social and economic well-being of local communities extend far beyond the scope of BLM

management or individual public land users’ responsibilities. In addition, since standards relate

primarily to physical and biological features of the landscape, it is very difficult to provide

measurable socioeconomic indicators that relate to the health of rangelands. It is important that

standards be realistic and within the control of the land manager and users to achieve.

Appendix J Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1539

Implementation of the Wyoming standards and guidelines will generally be done in the following

manner. Grazing allotments or groups of allotments in a watershed will be reviewed based on

the BLM’s current allotment categorization and prioritization process. Allotments with existing

management plans and high-priority allotments will be reviewed first. Lower priority allotments

will then be reviewed as time allows. The permittees and interested public will be notified when

allotments are scheduled for review and are encouraged to participate in the review. The review

will first determine if an allotment meets each of the six standards. If it does, no further action

will be necessary. If any of the standards aren’t being met, rationale explaining the contributing

factors will be prepared. If livestock grazing practices are found to be among the contributing

factors, corrective actions consistent with the guidelines will be developed and implemented. If a

lack of data prohibits the reviewers from determining if a standard is being met, a strategy will be

developed to acquire the data in a timely manner.

Standards for Healthy Public Rangelands

Standard #1

Within the potential of the ecological site (soil type, landform, climate, and geology), soils are

stable and allow for water infiltration to provide for optimal plant growth and minimal surface

runoff.

This Means That:

The hydrologic cycle will be supported by providing for water capture, storage, and sustained

release. Adequate energy flow and nutrient cycling through the system will be achieved as

optimal plant growth occurs. Plant communities are highly varied within Wyoming.

Indicators May Include But Are Not Limited To:

● Water infiltration rates

● Soil compaction

● Erosion (rills, gullies, pedestals, capping)

● Soil micro-organisms

● Vegetative cover (gully bottoms and slopes)

● Bare ground and litter

Standard #2

Riparian and wetland vegetation has structural, age, and species diversity characteristic of the

stage of channel succession and is resilient and capable of recovering from natural and human

disturbance in order to provide forage and cover, capture sediment, dissipate energy, and provide

for groundwater recharge.

This Means That:

Wyoming has highly varied riparian and wetland systems on public lands. These systems vary

from large rivers to small streams and from springs to large wet meadows. These systems are in

various stages of natural cycles and may also reflect other disturbance that is either localized or

February 2013

Appendix J Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands
1540 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

widespread throughout the watershed. Riparian vegetation captures sediments and associated

materials, thus enhancing the nutrient cycle by capturing and utilizing nutrients that would

otherwise move through a system unused.

Indicators May Include But Are Not Limited To:

● Erosion and deposition rate

● Channel morphology and floodplain function

● Channel succession and erosion cycle

● Vegetative cover

● Plant composition and diversity (species, age class, structure, successional stages, desired

plant community, etc.)

● Bank stability

● Woody debris and instream cover

● Bare ground and litter

Standard #3

Upland vegetation on each ecological site consists of plant communities appropriate to the site

which are resilient, diverse, and able to recover from natural and human disturbance.

This Means That:

In order to maintain desirable conditions and/or recover from disturbance within acceptable

timeframes, plant communities must have the components present to support the nutrient cycle

and adequate energy flow. Plants depend on nutrients in the soil and energy derived from sunlight.

Nutrients stored in the soil are used over and over by plants, animals, and microorganisms. The

amount of nutrients available and the speed with which they cycle among plants, animals, and the

soil are fundamental components of rangeland health. The amount, timing, and distribution of

energy captured through photosynthesis are fundamental to the function of rangeland ecosystems.

Indicators May Include But Are Not Limited To:

● Vegetative cover

● Plant composition and diversity (species, age class, structure, successional stages, desired

plant community, etc.)

● Bare ground and litter

● Erosion (rills, gullies, pedestals, capping)

● Water infiltration rates

Standard #4

Appendix J Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1541

Rangelands are capable of sustaining viable populations and a diversity of native plant and animal

species appropriate to the habitat. Habitats that support or could support threatened, endangered,

species of special concern, or sensitive species will be maintained or enhanced.

This means that:

The management of Wyoming rangelands will achieve or maintain adequate habitat conditions

that support diverse plant and animal species. These may include listed threatened or endangered

species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife-designated), species of special concern (BLM-designated), and

other sensitive species (State of Wyoming-designated). The intent of this standard is to allow

the listed species to recover and be delisted.

Indicators May Include But Are Not Limited To:

● Noxious weeds

● Species diversity

● Age class distribution

● All indicators associated with the upland and riparian standards

● Population trends

● Habitat fragmentation

Standard #5

Water quality meets State standards.

This Means That:

The State of Wyoming is authorized to administer the Clean Water Act. BLM management

actions or use authorizations will comply with all federal and state water quality laws, rules and

regulations to address water quality issues that originate on public lands. Provisions for the

establishment of water quality standards are included in the Clean Water Act, as amended, and

the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Regulations are found in Part 40 of the

CFR and in Wyoming’s Water Quality Rules and Regulations. The latter regulations contain

Quality Standards for Wyoming Surface Waters.

Natural processes and human actions influence the chemical, physical, and biological

characteristics of water. Water quality varies from place to place with the seasons, the climate,

and the kind substrate through which water moves. Therefore, the assessment of water quality

takes these factors into account.

Indicators May Include But Are Not Limited To:

● Chemical characteristics (e.g., pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen)

● Physical characteristics (e.g., sediment, temperature, color)

● Biological characteristics (e.g., macro- and micro-invertebrates, fecal coliform, and plant

and animal species)

February 2013

Appendix J Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands
1542 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Standard #6

Air quality meets State standards.

This Means That:

The State of Wyoming is authorized to administer the Clean Air Act. BLM management actions

or use authorizations will comply with all federal and state air quality laws, rules, regulations and

standards. Provisions for the establishment of air quality standards are included in the Clean Air

Act, as amended, and the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, as amended. Regulations are

found in Part 40 of the CFR and in Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations.

Indicators May Include But Are Not Limited To:

● Particulate matter

● Sulfur dioxide

● Photochemical oxidants (ozone)

● Volatile organic compounds (hydrocarbons)

● Nitrogen oxides

● Carbon monoxide

● Odors

● Visibility

BLM Wyoming Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

I. Timing, duration, and levels of authorized grazing will ensure that adequate amounts of

vegetative ground cover, including standing plant material and litter, remain after authorized

use to support infiltration, maintain soil moisture storage, stabilize soils, allow the release of

sufficient water to maintain system function, and to maintain subsurface soil conditions that

support permeability rates and other processes appropriate to the site.

II. Grazing management practices should restore, maintain, or improve riparian plant

communities. Grazing management strategies consider hydrology, physical attributes, and

potential for the watershed and the ecological site. Grazing management should maintain

adequate residual plant cover to provide for plant recovery, residual forage, sediment

capture, energy dissipation, and groundwater recharge.

III. Range improvement practices (instream structures, fences, water troughs, etc.) in and

adjacent to riparian areas will ensure that stream channel morphology (e.g., gradient,

width/depth ratio, channel roughness and sinuosity) and functions appropriate to climate

and landform are maintained or enhanced. The development of springs, seeps, or other

projects affecting water and associated resources shall be designed to protect the ecological

and hydrological functions, wildlife habitat, and significant cultural, historical, and

archaeological values associated with the water source. Range improvements will be located

away from riparian areas if they conflict with achieving or maintaining riparian function.

Appendix J Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1543

IV. Grazing practices that consider the biotic communities as more than just a forage base will

be designed in order to ensure that the appropriate kinds and amounts of soil organisms,

plants, and animals to support the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow are

maintained or enhanced.

V. Continuous season-long or other grazing management practices that hinder the completion

of plants’ life-sustaining reproductive and/or nutrient cycling processes will be modified

to ensure adequate periods of rest at the appropriate times. The rest periods will provide

for seedling establishment or other necessary processes at levels sufficient to move the

ecological site condition toward the resource objective and subsequent achievement of the

standard.

VI. Grazing management practices and range improvements will adequately protect vegetative

cover and physical conditions and maintain, restore, or enhance water quality to meet

resource objectives. The effects of new range improvements (water developments, fences,

etc.) on the health and function of rangelands will be carefully considered prior to their

implementation.

VII.Grazing management practices will incorporate the kinds and amounts of use that will

restore, maintain, or enhance habitats to assist in the recovery of federal threatened and

endangered species or the conservation of federally-listed species of concern and other

state-designated special status species. Grazing management practices will maintain existing

habitat or facilitate vegetation change toward desired habitats. Grazing management will

consider threatened and endangered species and their habitats.

VIII.Grazing management practices and range improvements will be designed to maintain

or promote the physical and biological conditions necessary to sustain native animal

populations and plant communities. This will involve emphasizing native plant species in

the support of ecological function and incorporating the use of non-native species only in

those situations in which native plant species are not available in sufficient quantities or are

incapable of maintaining or achieving properly functioning conditions and biological health.

IX. Grazing management practices on uplands will maintain desired plant communities or

facilitate change toward desired plant communities.

February 2013

Appendix J Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands
1544 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Definitions

Activity Plans – Allotment Management Plans (AMPs), Habitat Management Plans (HMPs),

Watershed Management Plans (WMPs), Wild Horse Management Plans (WHMPs), and other

plans developed at the local level to address specific concerns and accomplish specific objectives.

Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) – A group of people working together to develop

common resource goals and resolve natural resource concerns. CRM is a people process that

strives for win-win situations through consensus-based decision making.

Desired Plant Community – A plant community which produces the kind, proportion, and

amount of vegetation necessary for meeting or exceeding the land use plan/activity plan

objectives established for an ecological site(s). The desired plant community must be consistent

with the site’s capability to produce the desired vegetation through management, land treatment,

or a combination of the two.

Ecological Site – An area of land with specific physical characteristics that differs from other

areas both in its ability to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and in its response

to management.

Erosion – (v.) Detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or

gravity. (n.) The land surface worn away by running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents,

including such processes as gravitational creep.

Grazing Management Practices – Grazing management practices include such things as grazing

systems (rest-rotation, deferred rotation, etc.), timing and duration of grazing, herding, salting,

etc. They do not include physical range improvements.

Guidelines (For Grazing Management) – Guidelines provide for, and guide the development

and implementation of, reasonable, responsible, and cost-effective management actions at the

allotment and watershed level which move rangelands toward statewide standards or maintain

existing desirable conditions. Appropriate guidelines will ensure that the resultant management

actions reflect the potential for the watershed, consider other uses and natural influences, and

balance resource goals with social, cultural/historic, and economic opportunities to sustain viable

local communities. Guidelines, and, therefore, the management actions they engender, are based

on sound science, past and present management experience, and public input.

Indicator – An indicator is a component of a system whose characteristics (e.g., presence,

absence, quantity, and distribution) can be measured based on sound scientific principles.

An indicator can be measured (monitored and evaluated) at a site- or species-specific level.

Measurement of an indicator must be able to show change within timeframes acceptable to

management and be capable of showing how the health of the ecosystem is changing in response

to specific management actions. Selection of the appropriate indicators to be monitored in a

particular allotment is a critical aspect of early communication among the interests involved

on the ground. The most useful indicators are those for which change or trend can be easily

quantified and for which agreement as to the significance of the indicator is broad based.

Litter – The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface, essentially the freshly fallen or

slightly decomposed vegetal material.

Appendix J Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1545

Management Actions – Management actions are the specific actions prescribed by the BLM

to achieve resource objectives, land use allocations, or other program or multiple use goals.

Management actions include both grazing management practices and range improvements.

Objective – An objective is a site-specific statement of a desired rangeland condition. It may

contain qualitative (subjective) elements, but it must have quantitative (objective) elements so

that it can be measured. Objectives frequently speak to change. They may measure the avoidance

of negative changes or the accomplishment of positive changes. They are the focus of monitoring

and evaluation activities at the local level. Objectives may measure the products of an area rather

than its ability to produce them, but if they do so, it must be kept in mind that the lack of a product

may not mean that the standards have not been met. Instead, the lack of a particular product may

reflect other factors such as political or social constraints. Objectives often focus on indicators

of greatest interest for the area in question.

Range Improvements – Range improvements include such things as corrals, fences, water

developments (reservoirs, spring developments, pipelines, wells, etc.) and land treatments

(prescribed fire, herbicide treatments, mechanical treatments, etc.).

Rangeland – Land on which the native vegetation (climax or natural potential) is predominantly

grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs. This includes lands revegetated naturally or artificially

when routine management of that vegetation is accomplished mainly through manipulation of

grazing. Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannas, shrublands, most deserts, tundra, alpine

communities, coastal marshes, and wet meadows.

Rangeland Health – The degree to which the integrity of the soil and ecological processes of

rangeland ecosystems are sustained.

Riparian – An area of land directly influenced by permanent water. It has visible vegetation or

physical characteristics reflective of permanent water influence. Lakeshores and streambanks are

typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not have

vegetation dependent on free water in the soil.

Standards – Standards are synonymous with goals and are observed on a landscape scale.

Standards apply to rangeland health and not to the important by-products of healthy rangelands.

Standards relate to the current capability or realistic potential of a specific site to produce these

by-products, not to the presence or absence of the products themselves. It is the sustainability of

the processes, or rangeland health, that produces these by-products.

Terms and Conditions – Terms and conditions are very specific land use requirements that

are made a part of the land use authorization in order to assure maintenance or attainment of

the standard. Terms and conditions may incorporate or reference the appropriate portions of

activity plans (e.g., AMPs). In other words, where an activity plan exists that contains objectives

focused on meeting the standards, compliance with the plan may be the only term and condition

necessary in that allotment.

Upland – Those portions of the landscape which do not receive additional moisture for plant

growth from run-off, streamflow, etc. Typically these are hills, ridgetops, valley slopes, and

rolling plains.

February 2013

Appendix J Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1547

Appendix K. Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements

This appendix provides an overview of livestock grazing allotments including acreage and season

of use; allotment categorization; and allotments assessed for standards and guidelines. In addition,

it provides details of range improvement projects and the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM)

approach to comprehensive grazing management strategies. The data are presented throughout

the narrative and in the following six tables:

● Table K.1, “Grazing Allotments, Acres, Season of Use, and Animal Unit Months” (p. 1551)

● Table K.2, “Allotment Categorization – Current and Proposed” (p. 1563)

● Table K.3, “Lander Field Office Grazing Allotments Assessed for Meeting

Standards” (p. 1569)

● Table K.4, “Allotment Management Plans and Rangeland Management Agreements

Developed” (p. 1573)

● Table K.5, “Summary of Range Improvements Lander Field Office, 1986-2009” (p. 1576)

● Table K.6, “Animal Unit Months Authorized, 1989-2008” (p. 1581)

In 1985, the BLM established three categories for allotments to identify areas where management

was needed, as well as to prioritize workloads and the use of range improvement dollars generated

from the portion of grazing fees returned to the field office. See Chapter 4, Fire and Fuels

Management for changes in the use of range improvement dollars. The categories and criteria

used to place an allotment into each category are described below. Subsequently, in 2008, the

BLM revised the definitions for these categories in Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2009–018,

Process for Setting Priorities for Issuing Grazing Permits and Leases. The guidance makes clear

that categorization is not done as part of a Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision and

does not require an RMP amendment or maintenance action. However, part of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process associated with the RMP and Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) is to engage the public in scoping and providing input on management decisions.

Accordingly, this appendix identifies information on grazing allotments to better inform the public

on livestock grazing management on the allotment level. Any allotment specific decisions beyond

analyzing closing as much as 12,839 acres to public grazing, would be analyzed on a site-specific

basis as the procedures required by IM 2009–018 are implemented.

The categorization process now emphasizes ensuring that land health considerations are the

primary basis for prioritizing the processing and issuing of grazing authorizations for use of

allotments on public lands. A flow chart for the process of issuing grazing permits and leases

establishes the process to be followed as outlined in IM 2009–018.

Category I – Allotments where current livestock grazing management or level of use on public

land is, or is expected to be, a significant causal factor in the non-achievement of land health

standards, or where a change in mandatory terms and conditions in the grazing authorization is or

may be necessary. When identifying Category I allotments, review condition of critical habitat,

conflicts with greater sage-grouse, and whether projects have been proposed specifically for

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1548 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

implementing the Healthy Lands Initiative. Some of these allotments might be administered by

other BLM Field Offices.

Category M – Allotments where land health standards are met or where livestock grazing on

public land is not a significant causal factor for not meeting the standards and current livestock

management is in conformance with guidelines developed by the State Directors in consultation

with Resource Advisory Councils. Allotments where an evaluation of land health standards

has not been completed, but existing monitoring data indicates that resource conditions are

satisfactory.

Category C – Allotments where public lands produce less than 10 percent of the forage in the

allotment or are less than 10 percent of the land area. An allotment should generally not be

designated Category C if the public land in the allotment contains: (1) critical habitat for a

threatened or endangered species, and/or (2) riparian-wetlands adversely affected by livestock

grazing.

Comprehensive grazing management strategies are first and foremost intended to maintain,

and/or make substantial progress toward, fulfillment of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands. Comprehensive grazing management strategies should include and consider

defined resource management objectives for areas preferred by livestock, permitted use, class of

livestock, livestock season of use, limits of flexibility, monitoring requirements, forage allocations

necessary to support wildlife and wild horses, and the need for range improvements considerate

of potential conflicts with other resource values. Existing permits that have already been

fully processed under NEPA evaluating a range of grazing alternatives and existing functional

Allotment Management Plans already include comprehensive grazing management strategies.

The development of such a strategy will vary based on the identified management category

for the grazing allotment as follows:

● Category “I” allotments will be prioritized for the development of comprehensive grazing

strategies. The Lander Field Office will evaluate grazing strategies on I category allotments

based on the following criteria.

1. Carrying Capacity of the Allotment: Stocking rates will be established based on the

current average forage production and availability considerate of forage requirements of

wildlife and wild horse populations. Stocking rates must allow for adequate residual

cover to dissipate energy, capture sediment, and support proper infiltration and soil

moisture storage/release in support of ecological processes.

2. Season of use: Grazing during the critical growing season and during the hot season will

be required to be managed in a manner that allows for sufficient rest (e.g., rest/deferred

rotation systems) to promote healthy, vigorous native plant communities and minimize

soil loss and compaction.

3. Class of livestock: If the current class of livestock is considered to be an important

factor in non-fulfillment of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, a change

in class of livestock will be considered to make substantial progress toward fulfillment

of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. In the event a change in class of

livestock is not feasible, stocking rates and/or the season of use shall be appropriately

modified to make substantial progress toward fulfillment of the Wyoming Standards for

Healthy Rangelands in consideration of the overall grazing strategy.

4. Range Improvement Projects: Range improvement projects will be considered when

existing range improvements have been satisfactorily maintained, the project has been

found to be necessary for the establishment of modified grazing practices, and/or when

the project has been designed to make substantial progress toward fulfillment of the

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1549

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands in conformance with the Lander RMP.

All proposed range improvements will be evaluated for conflicts with other resource

values and must be designed to mitigate impacts to any conflicting values. Resource

values that will be evaluated for potential conflicts with range improvement projects

include, but are not limited to, special status species, wild horses, critical wildlife

habitats, cultural resources, National Historic Trail and Continental Divide National

Scenic Trail corridors, recreation, designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern,

wilderness study areas, and lands with wilderness characteristics. Projects that are

designed to promote substantial improvement toward meeting the Wyoming Standards

for Healthy Rangelands and sufficiently mitigate impacts to other resource values, if

any, will receive a higher priority consideration. Similarly, projects that are designed to

promote substantial improvement toward meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands, and are initiated to enhance other resource values (e.g., wildlife, recreation

etc.) will receive a higher priority consideration. Figure K.1, “Range Infrastructure

Development” (p. 1582), identifies the process by which the Lander Field Office will

prioritize range improvement project proposals.

● Category “M” and “C” allotments will be evaluated for comprehensive grazing management

strategies on a case-by-case basis. Where alternative grazing strategies and/or range

improvement projects are proposed, the proposals will be evaluated for conflicts with other

resources and the potential impacts to the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Projects that are designed to promote enhanced rangeland health and are initiated to enhance

other resource values (e.g., wildlife, recreation) will receive a higher priority consideration.

● Monitoring programs will be incorporated into comprehensive grazing management strategies

to evaluate the success of new management strategies in meeting resource objectives. The

cooperative monitoring program is intended to provide a framework for the facts and data

to be collected, analyzed, and shared with the public, and used by the BLM to make land

management decisions. A cooperative monitoring effort with the active participation of the

grazing permittees and interested public will be encouraged.

The following methods were used to calculate the disturbance areas associated with construction

of range improvement projects.

Spring Developments

A. (a+b+c) ÷ d = area affected by development = 1.0 acre

where a = 40,000 square feet; 200 feet by 200 feet area fenced around the

spring to prevent damage from livestock,

b = 1,200 square feet; 60 feet of pipeline with a 20 foot width of disturbance

for installation with a backhoe,

c = 28 square feet area displaced by a trough 2 feet in width by 14 feet in

length, and

d = 43,560 square feet, the number of square feet in one acre.

B. πr2÷ d = acres disturbed by livestock concentration = 1.6 acres

where π = 3.14 and,

r2= 50 yards (150 feet), the radius of the livestock concentration area and

d = 43,560 square feet, the number of square feet in one acre.

C. Total affected area for the spring development would be 1.0 acre + 1.6 acres

= 2.6 acres.

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1550 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Water Well Developments

A. (a+b+2c+d) ÷ e = area affected by development = 0.2 acre

where a = 5,000 square feet; affected area by well and storage tank,

b = 28 square feet; a water trough 2 feet in width by 14 feet in length,

c = 1,000 square feet; 50 feet of pipeline with a 20 foot width of disturbance

for installation with a backhoe,

d = 2,500 square feet; 50 feet by 50 feet affected area of an overflow pond, and

e = 43,560 square feet, number of square feet in one acre.

B. πr2 ÷ d = acres disturbed by livestock concentration = 1.6 acres

where π = 3.14, and

r2= 50 yards (150 feet), the radius of the livestock concentration area and

d = 43,560 square feet, the number of square feet in 1 acre.

C. Total acres affected by a water well development would be 0.2 acres + 1.6

acres = 1.8 acres.

Fencing

BLM three-wire cattle fence and riparian-wetlands pasture fence.

axb÷c = total affected area = 1.5 acres/mile

where a = 12 feet, this includes a two-tracked trail, produced by motor vehicles,

on each side of the fence,

b = 5,280 feet, the number of feet in 1 mile, and

c = 43,560 square feet, the number of square feet per acre.

12 feet/mile x 5,280 feet/mile = 63,360 square feet/mile ÷ 43,560 square feet/acre

= 1.45 acres/mile

Pasture Boundary Signs

Assumed to be 5 percent of the total affected area, the BLM three-wire cattle fence

requires repeated travel along the previously constructed fence, therefore causing

additional disturbances. Construction of a pasture boundary fence would require a

single trip, therefore causing a minimal amount of disturbance.

Cattleguards

All proposed cattleguards would be constructed on an existing road; therefore, no

additional disturbance would take place.

Artesian Well (Wetland Fencing)

A. (600 feet x 6 feet = 3,600 square feet) + (600 feet x 12 feet = 7,200 square feet)

= 10,800 square feet ÷ 43,560 square feet/acre = 0.2 acres on fenceline.

B. 200 feet x 200 feet = 40,000 square feet ÷ 43,560 square feet/acre = 0.9 acres

inside permanent exclosure.

Pipelines

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1551

1 foot x 5,280 feet/mile = 5,280 square feet/mile ÷ 43,560 square feet/acre = 0.1

acre/mile

Table K.1. Grazing Allotments, Acres, Season of Use, and Animal Unit Months

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Public Acres Permit/Lease

Livestock

Kind

Season of Use Public AUMs

180 Lost Creek 238 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/15 – 9/25 21

655

Copper

Mountain

248 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 11/15 121

1301

Cantril Jack

Allotment

6,875 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 8/16 – 11/30 573

1302

North of

CB&Q

Railroad

961 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/5 – 5/4 160

1303

South of

CB&Q

Railroad

7,256 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/5 – 5/4 660

Cattle 10/20 – 12/16

Cattle 11/15 – 12/16

1304

Crawford

Creek

1,209 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/15 – 10/14 460

1305 Lybyer North 3,175 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/26 – 5/31 262

1306

Canning

Allotment

347 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 8/10 – 2/28 28

Cattle 3/1 – 5/1

Horse 3/1 – 2/28

1307 Mallet-Smith

Pasture

137 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 7/1 – 9/30 24

1308

167A ScottRobson

283 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 6/15 33

Cattle 10/15 – 12/17

Sheep 5/1 – 6/15

Sheep 10/15 – 12/17

1309 Logan Pasture 3,427 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 9/15 610

1310

Cottonwood

Pass

2,321 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 10/18 – 11/1 249

Cattle 6/1 – 6/15

1311 Keenan 191 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/30 – 5/30 16

1312 North of Tracks 15,556 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 2/14 – 6/15 2,820

Cattle 10/1 – 12/31

Horse 3/1 – 2/28

1313 South of Tracks 8,923 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/1 – 12/31 1,110

1314 Moneta Hills

Pasture

7,752 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/1 – 12/31 587

1315 Ditch Pasture 782 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/20 – 5/5 108

1316 Madden Ranch

Pasture

1,442 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/5 – 12/30 170

1317

Brandau Ranch

Allotment

309 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 8/15 – 12/31 167

1318

Below the Hill

Pasture

2,793 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 9/29 78

1319 Twidale 200 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 5/31 39

Cattle 10/1 – 10/31

Horse 11/1 – 2/28

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1552 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Public Acres Permit/Lease

Livestock

Kind

Season of Use Public AUMs

1320 St. Clair West 350 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/10 – 5/10 65

1321 St. Clair Ranch 141 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 11/15 – 2/28 89

Cattle 3/1 – 3/31

1322

St. Clair South

Pasture

4,435 Permit – Sec 3 Horse 5/1 – 1/15 726

Cattle 10/15 – 12/31

1323

Fuller

Allotment

3,050 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 8/7 – 10/28 413

Cattle 5/24 – 6/25

1324

Hoodoo Creek

Allotment

23,168 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 9/1 – 10/10 1,491

Cattle 1/6 – 6/26

1325 East of Ranch 3,033 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 12/1 – 5/31 236

Sheep 12/1 – 6/15

1326 Lichtenstein 5,998 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 1/1 – 2/28 501

Sheep 12/1 – 4/15

1327 Myrtle Reed

Allotment

1,213 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 10/31 72

1328

Battle Axe

South

6,994 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 9/12 552

1329

Lysite

Mountain1 8,192 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/10 – 11/1 2,569

Horse 6/1 – 5/31

1330

Battle Axe

Lysite1 3,717 Permit – Sec 3 Sheep 3/19 – 4/20 420

Cattle 8/15 – 10/1

Cattle 4/15 – 6/1

1331

Battle Axe

Berger1 8,537 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/16 – 4/30 911

Horse 3/1 – 2/28

1332 Bow & Arrow 1,094 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/10 – 6/15 159

Cattle 10/1 – 12/1

Horse 6/1 – 9/30

1333

Gates Draw

Allotment

12,793 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 11/1 – 5/31 1,490

1334

Cottonwood

Pass

3,890 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/11 – 10/20 825

1335

OCLA South

of Railroad

6,848 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 12/1 – 3/31 912

1336

OCLA North

of Railroad

5,600 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/20 – 5/30 425

1337 De Pass Ranch 528 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 125

1338

Fuller Ranch

Pasture

1,450 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 4/30 165

1339

Picard Private

Allotment

3,146 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 12/1 – 5/15 490

1340

168A North of

Seeps

796 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 9/20 – 12/1 200

Cattle 5/1 – 6/1

Horse 6/1 – 9/30

1341

168 A Stock

Driveway1 2,016 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle

12/1 Permit –

Sec 312/31

40

Horse 12/1 – 12/31

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1553

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Public Acres Permit/Lease

Livestock

Kind

Season of Use Public AUMs

1342

Knapp

Individual

997 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 10/10 – 11/15 40

1343

Tuff Creek

Pasture

15,728 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 11/16 – 2/28 860

Cattle 4/1 – 7/31

1344 Westfall 3,620 Permit – Sec 3 Horse 3/1 – 12/20 698

Cattle 6/1 – 2/28

1345 Mountain

Pasture

1,135 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/20 – 1/15 277

1346

Bonneville

Reservoir

10,968 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/15 – 6/10 984

Horse 4/15 – 6/10

Cattle 10/1 – 12/31

1347

Jones Creek

Basin

1,292 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 7/1 – 10/10 488

1348

J. Herbst

Summer

2,198 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 9/30 308

Horse 10/1 – 4/30

1349

J. Herbst Tuff

Creek

1,226 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 10/1 – 11/15 228

Cattle 5/1 – 5/30

1350 Wm. Herbst

Summer

885 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 10/15 – 12/15 60

1351 Scott Draw 3,386 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 10/1 – 11/7 303

1352

Joe Johns

Pasture

1,109 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 8/15 – 11/30 298

Sheep 6/1 – 10/1

1353 Campbell 2,843 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/13 – 11/30 299

Horse 4/15 – 1/1

Sheep 5/15 – 7/15

Sheep 9/1 – 12/10

1354 Stinking Well 10,009 Permit – Sec 3 Sheep 3/1 – 4/15 789

Sheep 5/15 – 6/15

Cattle 3/1 – 5/31

Cattle 12/1 – 2/28

Sheep 12/1 – 2/28

1355 Lookout Hill 7,942 Permit – Sec 3 Sheep 4/1 – 6/28 682

Sheep 10/20 – 12/10

Cattle 4/1 – 5/15

1356

Howard

Pasture

2,717 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 1/1 – 2/28 224

Sheep 4/1 – 7/31

Sheep 12/15 – 2/28

1357

Summer

Allotment

182 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/15 – 7/14 32

1358

Top of

Mountain Past

910 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/15 – 10/15 23

1359 Ramage Ranch 11,990 Permit – Sec 3 Horse 3/1 – 2/28 1,549

Cattle 11/1 – 6/20

1360

Ruth Fuller

Private

86 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/15 – 5/23 9

Cattle 6/26 – 8/6

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1554 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Public Acres Permit/Lease

Livestock

Kind

Season of Use Public AUMs

1361

Copper

Mountain

(Lander)

288 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 7/1 – 9/30 40

1362 Lybyer South 2,500 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 4/30 319

Cattle 10/15 – 11/30

1363

Hoodoo HQ

Pastures

86 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 4

Horse 3/1 – 2/28

1364

Red Ranch

Pasture

24 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 1

1365

Quien Sabe

Ranch Pasture

5,973 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/1 – 6/30 944

Cattle 10/1 – 11/15

1366 Cabin Pasture 265 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 65

Horse 5/1 – 11/30

Sheep 3/1 – 2/28

1367

Henrich

Pasture

81 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/15 – 11/1 11

1368 Bridger Creek 114 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 18

Horse 3/1 – 2/28

1369

Picard Ranch

HQ

191 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 17

1373

Copper

Mountain

277 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 10/15 16

1401 Rim Pasture1 19,100 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 10/31 3,982

Sheep 6/1 – 10/8

1402

Delfelder

Allotment

8,938 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 1/17 1,203

1403

Conant Creek

Common1 49,541 Permit – Sec 3 Sheep 12/16 – 4/15 7,987

Cattle 5/1 – 11/30

Sheep 5/1 – 6/15

Sheep 10/14 – 11/30

1404 Wm. Herbst

Winter

2,932 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/6 – 6/20 398

Cattle 11/1 – 12/31

1405

Posey North

Allotment

4,410 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/15 – 6/20 429

Cattle 11/1 – 12/15

1406 Poison Creek 16,759 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/15 – 6/15 817

Cattle 10/15 – 12/30

1407 Muskrat AMP 39,494 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 10/15 – 4/30 3,962

1408

Township

Pasture

18,904 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 10/1 – 1/15 2,478

Horse 11/1 – 2/28

Horse 3/1 – 4/30

Cattle 4/1 – 4/30

1409 Muskrat Open1 99,243 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 11/30 10,519

1410 Posey Pasture 1,061 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/22 – 5/20 165

1411 Shoshoni Road 21,158 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 1/17 2,706

Horse 3/1 – 2/28

1412 Poston Winter 3,552 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 437

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1555

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Public Acres Permit/Lease

Livestock

Kind

Season of Use Public AUMs

1413

Pipeline

Pasture

4,228 Permit – Sec 3 Horse 12/1 – 4/30 452

Cattle 12/1 – 5/4

1414

Anderson

Winter

5,864 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 11/1 – 1/2 770

Cattle 5/15 – 5/31

1415 Myers Pasture 903 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 9/15 116

1416

Lame Jack

Draw

6,373 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 9/30 720

1417 Haybarn Hill 9,947 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 11/1 – 4/30 1,195

1512

South Dobie

Flat

6,847 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/23 – 6/9 1,207

Cattle 10/25 – 12/6

1518

Little Bug

Pasture

3,837 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 1/1 – 4/1 564

1601

Dodds

Allotment

1,744 Permit – Sec 3 Sheep 5/1 – 10/30 446

1604

#17 Horse

Heaven Pasture

16,329 Permit – Sec 3 Horse 6/1 – 9/30 3,077

Cattle 6/15 – 10/19

Sheep 7/1 – 10/18

1605

#18 Horse

Creek Pasture

3,685 Permit – Sec 3 Sheep 5/1 – 6/15 459

Sheep 10/19 – 11/30

Cattle 10/20 – 11/16

1606

#19 Vinegar

Hill Pasture

6,662 Permit – Sec 3 Sheep 10/19 – 12/12 981

Horse 1/1 – 3/31

Cattle 11/18 – 12/24

Sheep 12/30 – 1/15

1607

#16 Phillips

Pasture

1,872.00 Permit – Sec 3 Sheep 1/16 – 4/15 259

Cattle 12/25 – 2/8

1608

#20 Calf

Pasture

828 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 6/15 130

Sheep 5/1 – 6/15

1609

#21 Horse

Pasture

1,143 Permit – Sec 3 Horse 4/1 – 5/31 168

Cattle 6/1 – 6/6

Permit – Sec 3 Sheep 6/16 – 6/30

1610

#22 Bull

Pasture

908 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/1 – 6/30 156

Sheep 5/1 – 6/15

1612

Hamilton Rock

Pasture

3,998 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 12/25 – 1/27 454

Sheep 1/16 – 4/15

1614

Circle Bar

Allotment

38,299 Permit – Sec 3 Horse 5/1 – 2/28 5,897

Cattle 5/1 – 2/28

1615

North of Drift

Fence

20,318 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/10 – 9/26 4,391

1616 Keester 29,779 Horse 11/15 – 12/5 4,582

Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/16 – 11/28

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1556 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Public Acres Permit/Lease

Livestock

Kind

Season of Use Public AUMs

1619

Winter Pastures

(incl. Clayto

1618)

17,569 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 9/26 – 5/15 2,635

Horse 12/6 – 6/30

1620

Cabin Creek

Pasture

1,153 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 7/10 – 10/26 241

1622 Hat Ranch 5,022 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 5/15 855

Horse 3/1 – 5/15

Cattle 12/1 – 2/28

Horse 11/1 – 2/28

1623 Murphree

Pastures

9,219 Permit – Sec 3 Horse 6/25 – 11/16 1,061

Cattle 3/1 – 11/30

1625

Jamerman

Pastures

6,603 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 5/19 478

Cattle 11/1 – 2/28

1626 Mud Lake 1,324 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 12/1 – 12/31 113

1628 Sage Hen 1,312 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 12/1 – 2/28 189

1629

JJ Winter

Pastures

721 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 4/30 276

Horse 3/1 – 2/28

Cattle 11/1 – 2/28

1630

Tram Road

Pasture

1,136 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/1 – 5/15 135

1631

Claytor

Homestead

59 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 3/31 6

1632

North Hat

Pasture

1,144 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/15 – 4/30 180

Horse 6/1 – 8/31

1633 Stampede Bog 552 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 4/30 89

Cattle 10/15 – 11/30

1635

Big Rock

Pasture

13,386 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/1 – 5/31 1,995

Cattle 10/15 – 11/26

1636

Granite Mtn.

Open1 77,746 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/10 – 10/31 12,584

1638 Winter

Allotment

160 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 3/31 16

1640 Garson Ranch 2,531 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 10/31 403

1642 Devils Gate 24,227 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 3,700

Horse

1644

Turkey Track

Ranch

9,057 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 1,832

Horse

1660

Home, North

of Highway

1,231 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 12/1 – 5/25 205

Horse 3/1 – 5/25

1701 Flagg AMP1 11,463 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 11/30 2,086

1702

Flagg

Individual

298 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 12/1 – 2/28 51

1703 Big Pasture1 76,090 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 11/7 11,909

1704

Breeding

Pasture1 16,916 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/3 – 6/8 1,956

Cattle 9/1 – 11/16

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1557

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Public Acres Permit/Lease

Livestock

Kind

Season of Use Public AUMs

Horse 4/1 – 12/15

1705 Myers Fenced

Pasture

1,640 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/6 – 4/30 175

1706

Trent and

Home Place

427 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 11/16 – 2/28 40

1707 Ice Slough 953 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 7/31 183

1709

Long Creek

Pasture

2,567 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/1 – 9/30 227

Cattle 11/16 – 12/15

1710

Graham Ranch

Pasture

1,129 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 11/15 – 2/28 175

Cattle 3/1 – 4/30

1711

Hay Meadow

Pasture

316 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 5/14 50

Cattle 9/1 – 2/28

1712

Long Creek

Sweetwater

426 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 11/1 – 4/30 66

1713 Whitlock

Fenced

1,057 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/1 – 4/30 126

1714 Scarlett Pasture 41 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 10/1 – 2/28 79

1715 Horse Pasture 130 Permit – Sec 3 Horse 3/1 – 3/31 14

Horse 12/16 – 2/28

1716 Dishpan Butte1 16,069 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/15 – 11/1 1,983

1717

Fenced

Individual

1,310 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 6/14 171

1801

East Beaver

Common1 61,911 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 11/15 7,331

1802

Sand Draw

AMP

13,635 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 10/15 1,418

1803

Government

Draw1 75,775 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/7 – 10/31 8,940

1804

Government

Draw-Lower

Beaver1

20,468 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 6/10 4,040

Cattle 11/1 – 2/28

1805

KirbyReservation

Boundary

5,265 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/16 – 6/14 734

Cattle 11/1 – 11/30

1806

Griffin Beaver

Creek

6,087 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 10/15 714

1807

Baldwin

Pasture

465 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/20 – 5/15 105

1808

Hudson

Draw Private

Allotment

481 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/7 – 6/14 38

1809 Bringolf Ranch 668 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/15 – 5/14 141

Cattle 10/1 – 10/31

1810

Yellowstone

Ranch

338 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 11/1 – 12/31 92

1813 Blue Ridge 260 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 11/1 – 12/16 8

1814

Highway

Pasture

152 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 5/29 21

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1558 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Public Acres Permit/Lease

Livestock

Kind

Season of Use Public AUMs

1901

Atlantic City

Common1 38,698 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/20 – 9/30 4,765

Cattle 5/8 – 10/4

Goat 5/20 – 9/30

1902

Cottonwood

Basin

7,625 Permit – Sec 3 Horse 5/1 – 9/30 705

Cattle 4/20 – 10/31

1903

Silver Creek

Common1 32,941 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/15 – 10/31 3,524

1904

Devils Canyon

AMP1 3,585 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/16 – 9/30 652

1905

Ellis Upper

Beaver1 2,105 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/16 – 9/30 530

1906

Twin Creek

Individual

7,516 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 12/1 1,644

Horse 5/2 – 7/1

1907

Commissary

Hill

953 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 6/15 74

Cattle 10/1 – 10/15

1908

Little Popo

Agie AMP

8,541 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/10 – 10/1 1,814

1909 Onion Flat 1,193 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 5/31 188

Cattle 10/16 – 11/15

1910 Sawmill Basin 2,401 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 10/15 197

1911

Red Canyon

AMP1 3,605 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/15 – 8/28 580

1912

Twin Creek

Private

385 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/16 – 10/15 44

1913 McGraw Flat

Individual

1,034 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 9/30 206

1914 McGraw Flat

Common1 10,401 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 10/31 1,824

1915 Beaver AMP 8,958 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 10/31 1,964

1916

Hall CK

Individual

12,464 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 1/31 2,328

Horse 5/15 – 2/28

1917

Cottonwood

Divide

5,685 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 7/10 1,570

Cattle 10/1 – 11/14

1918 McGraw

Flat-U. Beaver

8,388 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 7/1 – 10/10 1,146

1919

Gravel

Springs1 2,840 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/16 – 10/10 488

1920 Salisbury AMP 5,389 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/16 – 9/30 996

Horse 5/16 – 9/30

1921

Level

Meadows

3,249 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 10/30 701

1922

French George

Crossing

626 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/16 – 9/30 146

1923

Atlantic City

Upper Fenced

248 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 11/30 81

1924

Atlantic City

Lower Fenced

127 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 11/30 58

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1559

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Public Acres Permit/Lease

Livestock

Kind

Season of Use Public AUMs

1925

Hall Creek

Winter Pasture1 1,299 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 11/23 – 2/28 98

1926 McKinney

Individual

818 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 9/30 235

1927

Upper Ellis

Ranch

236 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 9/15 – 12/31 157

1928

Lower Ellis

Ranch

321 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 9/15 – 12/31 48

1929 Barras Spring 51 Not Licensed

1930 Long Willow 709 Not Licensed

1931 Woolery

Individual

1,231 Not Licensed

1932

Sheep

Mountain

558 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 9/30 99

1933 Lazy Y 173 Not Licensed

1934

Red Canyon

Rim 846 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/5 – 10/31 29

1935

Bowman

Ranch Not Licensed

1936 Derby Not Licensed

1937 Little Knoll Not Licensed

1938

Bergstedt

Ranch

52 Not Licensed

1939 Auer Ranch 649 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 11/1 – 2/28 93

1940 Henton Ranch 24 Not Licensed

1941 Flat Onion Not Licensed

1943

Red Bluff

Creek

89 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 1

Cattle 6/1 – 9/30

2009 Alkali Pasture 444 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 6/30 28

Cattle 8/1 – 10/31

2011

Highway

Allotment

509 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/1 – 5/15 90

2021 Willow Creek

Allotment

85 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 6/30 15

2023 Crooks Gap 952 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 10/1 – 11/30 83

2025

Leckinby

Pasture

3,436 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 11/30 607

2026

Little Camp

Creek

2,281 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 10/31 294

2028 Mitchell

Pasture

544 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/15 – 9/15 106

2029 Diamond Hook 141 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 27

2103

Lime Kiln

Gulch

1,159 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 5/15 – 6/30 154

2104

Little Warm

Springs

Canyon

315 Not Licensed Cattle 9/25 – 9/28 27

2106 Fire Ridge 148 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 6/15 – 9/30 8

2107 Wells 11 305 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 5/1 – 6/30 31

Horse 8/1 – 10/31

2108 Geyser Creek 829 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 6/1 – 9/30 50

2109 Cross 14 643 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 9/30 134

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1560 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Public Acres Permit/Lease

Livestock

Kind

Season of Use Public AUMs

2110

Little Horse

Creek

720 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 5/15 – 10/31 51

2111

E A Mountain

16

1,761 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 6/30 264

Cattle 8/1 – 10/30

2112

Bear Creek No.

2112

3,499 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 5/1 – 6/30 542

Cattle 10/15 – 11/30

2113 Crooked Creek 1,247 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/25 – 9/30 133

Horse 6/25 – 10/28

2114 Spence 23 1,470 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 5/1 – 12/1 290

2115 Hat Butte 893 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 6/30 154

Cattle 9/1 – 10/30

2116

Elk Ridge

Southeast

316 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 6/1 – 8/31 21

2117 Blue Holes 682 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 3/1 – 4/30 90

Horse 11/1 – 2/28

2119 White Pass 31 650 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 5/1 – 6/30 116

Cattle 10/1 – 11/30

2120 Windy Ridge 332 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 4/1 – 6/30 54

Cattle 10/1 – 10/31

2121 Mason Drawn 6,813 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 5/1 – 6/30 845

Cattle 10/1 – 10/30

2122

Tappan Creek

34

1,065 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 11/15 180

2123

Battrum

Mountain

5,936 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 10/15 531

2125 Albright 47 286 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 4/1 – 6/30 28

Horse 10/1 – 10/31

2126 CM 49 940 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 11/10 – 12/9 67

Horse 6/1 – 6/30

2127 Wagon Gulch 80 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/15 – 12/15 95

Horse 6/15 – 12/15

2128 Bitterroot 60 691 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 5/20 – 6/17 68

2130 Cross 67 591 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 5/1 – 9/30 91

2132

Stoney Point

73

121 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 3/1 – 6/1 12

Horse 10/15 – 2/28

2201

North Fork

Rim Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 10/31 60

2202

Baldwin Creek

School

1,959 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 5/1 – 7/1 16

2203 Madison Creek 1,656 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 5/1 – 11/30 20

282 Cattle 5/1 – 11/30

2204

Table

Mountain 9

1,216 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 10/1 128

2205 Hopkins 13 200 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 9/30 40

Horse 6/1 – 9/30

2206 Wickstrom 17 179 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/16 – /7/16 11

2207 Steers 19 2,522 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/15 – 9/30 146

2208 Pine Bar 21 418 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 8/31 6

2210 Willow Creek

24

1,108 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 5/15 – 10/15 274

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1561

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Public Acres Permit/Lease

Livestock

Kind

Season of Use Public AUMs

2211 Squaw Creek 1,174 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 8/31 209

2212

Frank Ranch

28

582 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 5/1 – 11/1 110

2213 Spriggs 36 2,196 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/15 – 9/29 70

2214 Meyer Basin 1,273 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 9/30 233

2215 Wunder 38 1,284 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 7/1 – 9/15 63

2216 Day 39 106 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 6/1 – 7/13 4

2217 Nicholas 40 428 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 9/29 48

2218 Double A 41 280 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 6/30 38

2219 Orchard Draw 964 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 5/10 – 10/1 124

2220 Red Butte 40 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 10/31 5

2221 Juniper Hill 200 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 10/1 – 11/15 15

2222

School

Allotment

160 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 5/1 – 7/2 25

2223

Baldwin Creek

51

200 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 8/31 18

2224 Natural Lake 235 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 7/27 22

2225 Crump 53 163 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 6/1 – 11/14 27

2226 Hunter 79 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 8/31 6

2227 Smith Creek 78 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 10/1 – 10/7 6

2228 Spriggs 57 120 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 8/1 – 9/30 6

2229 Kaper 59 277 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 9/30 56

2230

Table

Mountain 61

40 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 9/22 7

2231 Booth 62 121 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 6/21 8

2232

Beason Creek

63

476 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 9/30 20

2233 Batrum Gap 474 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 10/30 96

Horse 12/1 – 12/15

2234 Sjostrom 66 168 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 6/1 – 8/31 18

2235

Horny Toad

Associate

522 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/1 – 10/30 35

2236 Freeman 70 121 Lease – Sec 15 Horse 5/1 – 9/25 24

2237 North Fork 473 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 5/10 – 10/31 38

2238 Hilltop 40 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 3/1 – 6/1 7

Cattle 11/15 – 2/28

2239 Cyclone Pass Not Licensed

2240 Harvey Basin 1,475 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 5/15 – 10/30 183

2520 Woods Basin 173 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 6/20 – 9/30 25

10160

Cedar Ridge

LRA

520 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 67

10203 Cherry Creek 28,793 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle/Horse 3/1 – 2/28 4,841

10205 Bar Eleven 51,065 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 11,419

Horse

Sheep

10224 Stewart Creek1 61,284 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/28 – 8/30 149

10533

Steamboat

Lake

1,633 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 2/28 261

Horse

11501 Muskrat-Linn 54,118 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 1/1 – 12/31 6,799

11502 Fraser Draw1 73,110 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/16 – 12/16 5,941

11504 Canyon Creek 11,109 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/20 – 10/31 1,400

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1562 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Public Acres Permit/Lease

Livestock

Kind

Season of Use Public AUMs

11505

South Deer

Creek

11,319 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/10 – 10/31 1,292

11506

Deer Creek

AMP

7,052 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/15 – 11/15 1,297

11507 South Cross L 2,360 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 5/21 386

Horse 6/1 – 10/12

11508 Gas Hills 48,496 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/16 – 12/10 3,547

Sheep 5/16 – 12/10

11509

Diamond

Springs

40,573 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/10 – 11/20 4,956

Horse 10/23 – 11/20

11510

North Willow

Creek

3,475 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/20 – 6/10 616

11511

North Dobie

Flat

11,469 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/5 – 6/5 1,516

Cattle 10/15 – 11/30

11513

Blackjack

Ranch

31,197 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/6 – 9/6 1,721

11514 Gap Pasture 3,433 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 6/2 581

11515

Cross L

Pastures

1,327 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 12/16 – 4/30 316

Horse 5/26 – 6/24

11516 Basin Pasture 18,286 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 7/1 – 11/30 2,471

11517

Bug Meadows

Pastures

568 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 5/31 91

12002

Harris Slough

Past

110 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/20 – 5/19 5

12003 Whiskey Peak

Incomm1 63,446 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 12/30 5,254

Sheep

12004

Green

Mountain

Fenced

4,310 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/10 – 5/10 652

Cattle 10/1 – 11/1

Horse 8/1 – 9/30

12005

Home, South

of Highway

2,715 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 12/16 – 3/5 383

12006 46 Pasture1 2,683 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 3/1 – 6/15 488

Cattle 10/1 – 2/28

12007 Rigby Pasture 1,091 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 10/31 176

12012 East Allotment 2,002 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 10/16 – 11/7 377

Cattle 4/16 – 5/15

12013

Fenced

Allotment

10,329 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/16 – 10/31 1,703

12014

South Hat

Pasture

1,789 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/15 – 6/13 287

12015 Hadsell Pasture 3,806 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/10 – 10/16 547

12016

State-71

Meadows

274 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 5/31 51

12018

Alma Grieve

Pasture

3,271 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 10/1 – 2/28 453

12019 Cooper Creek 1,247 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 7/15 200

Cattle 10/1 – 12/30

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1563

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Public Acres Permit/Lease

Livestock

Kind

Season of Use Public AUMs

12020

Cottonwood

Pasture

2,019 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 11/1 – 2/28 265

12242 Squaw Creek 80 Lease – Sec 15 Cattle 10/1 – 11/14 13

14289

Upper Poison

Spider Creek

9,065 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 1,693

Sheep

14808

Three

Crossings

Allotment

1,514 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 10/11 602

Cattle 11/10 – 11/30

20213

Elkhorn LRA

(including Oil

City Allotment

1602)

305 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/20 – 6/8 791

Horse 5/15 – 6/14

Cattle 7/15 – 10/15

21519 Miller Springs

Pasture

1,884 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 6/1 – 9/30 313

21520 School Pasture 874 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 9/1 – 11/30 251

21521 Riddle Pasture 1,350 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/1 – 5/31 306

Cattle 11/1 – 12/31

21522 Decker Pasture 331 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 4/1 – 5/31 49

Cattle 11/1 – 12/31

21523

Hay Meadow

Pastures

69 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 12/1 – 4/30 168

31519

Beef Gap

Pasture

352 Permit – Sec 3 Cattle 5/1 – 6/2 72

32001

Green

Mountain

CMN1

466,474 Permit – Sec 3 Sheep 3/1 – 2/28 11,450

Cattle 5/1 – 12/31 35,911

Note: Data in table derived from Bureau of Land Management Lander Field Office internal databases.

1

Indicates a common allotment.

AMP Allotment Management Plan

AUM Animal Unit Month

Table K.2. Allotment Categorization – Current and Proposed

Allotment Allotment Name Existing RMP Proposed New Category

01323 Fuller Allotment I I

180 Lost Creek M M

00655 Copper Mountain I I

01301 Cantril Jack Allotment M M

01302 North of CB&Q Railroad C I

01303 South of CB&Q Railroad M I

01304 Crawford Creek I I

01305 Lybyer North I I

01306 Canning Allotment M M

01307 Mallet-Smith Pasture C C

01308 167A Scott Robson M M

01309 Logan Pasture M M

01310 Cottonwood Pass C I

01311 Keenan C C

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1564 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Allotment Allotment Name Existing RMP Proposed New Category

01312 North of Tracks M I

01313 South of Tracks I I

01314 Moneta Hills Pasture M M

01315 Ditch Pasture C C

01316 Madden Ranch Pasture C C

01317 Brandau Ranch Allotment C I

01318 Below the Hill Pasture M M

01319 Twidale C C

01320 St. Clair West C I

01321 St. Clair Ranch C C

01322 St. Clair South Past. I I

01324 Hoodoo Creek Allotment I I

01325 East of Ranch I I

01326 Lichtenstein I I

01327 Myrtle Reed Allotment I I

01328 Battle Axe South M M

01329 Lysite Mountain I I

01330 Battle Axe Lysite M M

01331 Battle Axe Berger M I

01332 Bow & Arrow M M

01333 Gates Draw Allotment I I

01334 Cottonwood Pass I I

01335 OCLA South of Railroad I I

01336 OCLA North of Railroad I I

01337 De Pass Ranch C C

01338 Fuller Ranch Pasture I I

01339 Picard Private Allotment I I

01340 168A North of Seeps C I

01341 168A Stock Driveway M M

01342 Knapp Individual C C

01343 Tuff Creek Pasture C I

01344 Westfall I I

01345 Mountain Pasture C I

01346 Bonneville Reservoir I I

01347 Jones Creek Basin I M

01348 J. Herbst Summer M I

01349 J. Herbst Tuff Creek C I

01350 Wm. Herbst Summer C C

01351 Scott Draw I M

01352 Joe Johns Pasture C C

01353 Campbell M M

01354 Stinking Well I I

01355 Lookout Hill M M

01356 Howard Pasture I I

01357 Summer Allotment M M

01358 Top of Mountain Pasture C C

01359 Ramage Ranch I I

01360 Ruth Fuller Private C C

01361 Copper Mountain (Lander) C C

01362 Lybyer South I M

01363 Hoodoo HQ Pastures C C

01364 Red Ranch Pasture C C

01365 Quien Sabe Ranch Pasture I M

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1565

Allotment Allotment Name Existing RMP Proposed New Category

01366 Cabin Pasture C C

01367 Henrich Pasture I I

01368 Bridger Creek C C

01369 Picard Ranch HQ C C

01373 Copper Mountain C C

01401 Rim Pasture I I

01402 Delfelder Allotment I I

01403 Conant Creek Common I I

01404 Wm. Herbst Winter I I

01405 Posey North Allotment I I

01406 Poison Creek M M

01407 Muskrat AMP I I

01408 Township Pasture I I

01409 Muskrat Open I I

01410 Posey Pasture I I

01411 Shoshoni Road I I

01412 Poston Winter I M

01413 Pipeline Pasture I M

01414 Anderson Winter M M

01415 Myers Pasture I M

01416 Lame Jack Draw I I

01417 Haybarn Hill C I

01512 South Dobie Flat M I

01518 Little Bug Pasture M M

01519 Miller Springs Pasture M I

01520 School Pasture M M

01521 Riddle Pasture M M

01523 Bug Lake M M

01601 Dodds Allotment M M

01604 #17 Horse Heaven Pasture M I

01605 #18 Horse Creek Pasture M M

01606 #19 Vinegar Hill Pasture M M

01607 #16 Phillips Pasture M M

01608 #20 Calf Pasture M M

01609 #21 Horse Pasture M M

01610 #22 Bull Pasture C C

01612 Hamilton Rock Pasture M M

01614 Circle Bar Allotment M I

01615 North of Drift Fence M I

01616 Keester M M

01619 Winter Pastures M M

01620 Cabin Creek Pasture C C

01622 Hat Ranch I M

01623 Murphree Pastures I I

01625 Jamerman Pastures M M

01626 Mud Lake C C

01628 Sage Hen M M

01629 JJ Winter Pastures C C

01630 Tram Road Pasture M I

01631 Claytor Homestead C C

01632 North Hat Pasture M M

01633 Stamped Bog C M

01635 Big Rock Pasture I I

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1566 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Allotment Allotment Name Existing RMP Proposed New Category

01636 Granite Mountain Open I I

01638 Winter Allotment M M

01640 Garson Ranch C C

01642 Devils Gate M M

01644 Turkey Track I I

01660 Home, North of Highway M M

01701 Flagg AMP I I

01702 Flagg Individual C C

01703 Big Pasture I I

01704 Breeding Pasture M M

01705 Myers Fenced Pasture I I

01706 Trent & Home Place M M

01707 Ice Slough I I

01709 Long Creek Pasture I M

01710 Graham Ranch Pasture M M

01711 Hay Meadow Pasture C C

01712 Long Creek Sweetwater C C

01713 Whitlock Fenced I I

01714 Scarlett Pasture C C

01715 Horse Pasture M M

01716 Dishpan Butte I I

01717 Fenced Individual I M

01801 East Beaver Common I I

01802 Sand Draw AMP I I

01803 Government Draw I I

01804

Government Draw – Lower

Beaver

I I

01805

Kirby-Reservation

Boundary

I I

01806 Griffin Beaver Creek M M

01807 Baldwin Pasture I I

01808

Hudson Draw Private

Allotment M M

01809 Bringolf Ranch C C

01810 Yellowstone Ranch C C

01813 Blue Ridge C C

01814 Highway Pasture C C

01901 Atlantic City Common I I

01902 Cottonwood Basin I I

01903 Silver Creek Common I I

01904 Devils Canyon AMP I I

01905 Ellis Upper Beaver I I

01906 Twin Creek Individual I I

01907 Commissary Hill I M

01908 Little Popo Agie AMP I M

01909 Onion Flat I I

01910 Sawmill Basin I I

01911 Red Canyon AMP I I

01912 Twin Creek Private C C

01913 McGraw Flat Individual I I

01914 McGraw Flat Common I I

01915 Beaver AMP I I

01916 Hall Creek Individual I I

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1567

Allotment Allotment Name Existing RMP Proposed New Category

01917 Cottonwood Divide I I

01918 McGraw Flat-U. Beaver I I

01919 Gravel Springs Allotment I I

01920 Salisbury AMP I I

01921 Level Meadows I I

01922 P. Heart Individual I I

01923 Atlantic City Upper Fenced C C

01924 Atlantic City Lower Fenced C C

01925 Hall Creek Winter Past M M

01926 McKinney Individual I I

01927 Upper Ellis Ranch C C

01928 Lower Ellis Ranch C C

01929 Barras Spring C C

01930 Long Willow C C

1931 Woolery Individual M M

01932 Sheep Mountain M M

01933 Lazy Y C C

01934 Red Canyon Rim I M

01935 Bowman Ranch C C

01936 Derby Allotment M M

01937 Little Knoll C C

01938 Bergstedt Ranch C C

01939 Auer Ranch C C

01940 Henton Ranch C C

01941 Flat Onion I I

01943 Red Bluff Creek M M

02009 Alkali Pasture M M

02011 Highway Allotment I I

02019 Cooper Creek M M

02021 Willow Creek Allotment C C

02023 Crooks Gap M M

02025 Leckinby Pasture M M

02026 Little Camp Creek I I

02028 Mitchell Pasture C C

02029 Diamond Hook C C

02103 Lime Kiln Gulch C C

02104 Little Warm Spring Canyon M M

02106 Fire Ridge M M

02107 Wells 11 M M

02108 Geyser Creek M M

02109 Cross 14 C C

02110 Little Horse Creek I I

02111 E A Mountain 16 M M

02112 Bear Creek No. 2112 C C

02113 Crooked Creek C C

02114 Spence 23 C C

02115 Hat Butte Ranch C C

02116 Elk Ridge Southeast C C

02117 Blue Holes C C

02119 White Pass 31 C C

02120 Windy Ridge C C

02121 Mason Draw I I

02122 Tappan Creek 34 I I

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1568 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Allotment Allotment Name Existing RMP Proposed New Category

02123 Battrum Mountain C I

02125 Albright 47 C C

02126 CM 49 M M

02127 Wagon Gulch C C

02128 Bitterroot 60 C C

02130 Cross 67 C C

02132 Stoney Point 73 C C

02201 North Fork Rim M M

02202 Baldwin Creek School C C

02203 Madison Creek C C

02204 Table Mountain 9 C C

02205 Hopkins 13 I I

02206 Wickstrom 17 I C

02207 Steers 19 I I

02208 Pine Bar 21 M M

02210 Willow Creek 24 I I

02211 Squaw Creek I I

02212 Frank Ranch 28 C C

02213 Spriggs 36 I C

02214 Meyer Basin I I

02215 Wunder 38 I C

02216 Day 39 C C

02217 Nicholas 40 I I

02218 Double A 41 I I

02219 Orchard Draw I I

02220 Red Butte I I

02221 Juniper Hill C C

02222 School Allotment I I

02223 Baldwin Creek 51 I I

02224 Natural Lake C C

02225 Crump 53 I I

02226 Hunter C C

02227 Smith Creek C C

02228 Spriggs 57 I I

02229 Kaper 59 C C

02230 Table Mountain 61 C C

02231 Booth 62 C C

02232 Beason Creek 63 I I

02233 Batrum Gap C C

02234 Sjostrom 66 C C

02235 Horny Toad Associate I I

02236 Freeman 70 I I

02237 North Fork C C

02238 Hilltop C C

02239 Cyclone Pass I I

02240 Harvey Basin I I

02520 Woods Basin C C

10160 Cedar Ridge LRA C C

10203 Cherry Creek I I

10205 Bar Eleven I I

10224 Stewart Creek I I

10533 Steamboat Lake C C

11501 Muskat-Linn I I

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1569

Allotment Allotment Name Existing RMP Proposed New Category

11502 Fraser Draw M M

11504 Canyon Creek I M

11505 South Deer Creek I M

11506 Deer Creek AMP I I

11507 South Cross L M M

11508 Gas Hills M I

11509 Diamond Springs I I

11510 North Willow Creek M M

11511 North Dobie Flat M I

11513 Blackjack Ranch I I

11514 Gap Pasture M M

11515 Cross L Pastures M M

11516 Basin Pasture M I

11517 Bug Meadows Pastures M M

12002 Harris Slough Past C C

12003 Whiskey Peak Incomm. I I

12004 Green Mountain Fenced I I

12005 Home, South of Highway I I

12006 46 Pasture I I

12007 Rigby Pasture I I

12012 East Allotment M M

12013 Fenced Allotment I I

12014 South Hat Pasture M M

12015 Hadsell Pasture I I

12016 State-71 Meadows C C

12018 Alma Grieve Pasture M M

12020 Cottonwood Pasture M M

12242 Squaw Creek C C

14289 Upper Poison Spider Creek I I

14808 Three Crossings Allotment M M

20213 Elkhorn – LRA I I

21522 Decker Pasture M C

31519 Beef Gap Pasture M I

32001 Green Mountain CMN I I

Note: Data in table derived from Bureau of Land Management Lander Field Office internal databases accessed in

2010.

AMP Allotment Management Plan

RMP Resource Management Plan

Table K.3. Lander Field Office Grazing Allotments Assessed for Meeting Standards

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Year

Assessed

Acres

Assessed

Meeting

Standards

Not Meeting

Standards

– Management Implemented

Not Meeting

Standards

– Causal

Factors Not

Determined

Not Meeting

Standards –

Other Than

Livestock

Grazing

1304 Crawford

Creek

2012 2,342 X

1306 Canning 2012 347 X

1307 Mallet-Smith

Pasture

2003 181 X

1310 Cotton-wood

Pass

2012 2,317 X

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1570 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Year

Assessed

Acres

Assessed

Meeting

Standards

Not Meeting

Standards

– Management Implemented

Not Meeting

Standards

– Causal

Factors Not

Determined

Not Meeting

Standards –

Other Than

Livestock

Grazing

1318 Below the

Hill

2012 2,548 X

1323 Fuller

Allotment

2012 3,050 X

1324

Hoodoo

Creek

2001 23,209 X

1327 Myrtle Reed 2003 1,209 X

1329

Lysite

Mountain

2012 8,194 X

1330

Battle Axe

Lysite

2000 4,298 X

1334

Cottonwood

Pass

2012 3,890 X

1335

OCLA South

of Railroad

2000 6,413 X

1336

OCLA North

of Railroad

2000 4,861 X

1337

De Pass

Ranch

2000 472 X

1338

Fuller Ranch

Pasture

2000 1,477 X

1340 168A North

of Seeps

2012 794 X

1341

Stock

Driveway

2000 2,185 X

1344 Westfall 2012 3,620 X

1345 Mountain

Pasture

2012 1,135 X

1347 Jones Creek

Basin

2012 1,292 X

1348 J. Herbst

Summer

2012 2,385 X

1350 Wm Herbst

Summer

2012 699 X

1352 Joe Johns

Pasture

2012 1,109 X

1357 Summer

Allotment

2012 182 X

1358

Top Of

Mountain

Pasture

2001 1,449 X

1359

Ramage

Ranch

1998 12,060 X

1360 Ruth Fuller

Private

2012 89 X

1361 Copper

Mountain

2012 288 X

1363

Hoodoo HQ

Pasture

2001 149 X

1366 Cabin

Pasture

2012 265 X

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1571

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Year

Assessed

Acres

Assessed

Meeting

Standards

Not Meeting

Standards

– Management Implemented

Not Meeting

Standards

– Causal

Factors Not

Determined

Not Meeting

Standards –

Other Than

Livestock

Grazing

1367 Heinrich

Pasture

2012 81 X

1369

Picard Ranch

HQ

2000 169 X

1373

Copper

Mountain

2001 128 X

1401 Rim Pasture 2000 19,095 X

1403

Conant

Creek

2000 50,376 X

1404 Wm. Herbst

Winter

2000 2,989 X

1405 Posey North 2000 4,431 X

1412

Poston

Winter

2000 3,239 X

1414

Anderson

Winter

2000 5,924 X

1416

Lame Jack

Draw

2000 6,060 X

1417 Haybarn Hill 2000 10,288 X

1506

Deer Creek

AMP

1998 7,000 X

1508 Gas Hills 1998 42,201 X

1509

Diamond

Springs

2008 40,890 X

1511

North Dobie

Flat

2008 11,435 X

1512

South Dobie

Flat

2008 6,752 X

1513

Black Jack

Ranch

2008 31,708 X

1633

Stampede

Bog

2000 301 X

1704

Breeding

Pasture

2001 17,107 X

1705

Myers

Fenced

Pasture

2001 1,288 X

1706

Trent &

Home Place

2001 500 X

1707 Ice Slough 2002 947 X

1709

Long Creek

Pasture

2001 2,406 X

1710

Graham

Ranch

Pasture

2001 1,118 X

1712

Long Creek

Sweetwater

2001 388 X

1713 Whitlock

Fenced

2001 1,086 X

1714

Scarlett

Pasture

2001 173 X

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1572 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Year

Assessed

Acres

Assessed

Meeting

Standards

Not Meeting

Standards

– Management Implemented

Not Meeting

Standards

– Causal

Factors Not

Determined

Not Meeting

Standards –

Other Than

Livestock

Grazing

1715

Horse

Pasture

2004 133 X

1802

Sand Draw

AMP

1999 11,092 X

1805

Kirby

Reservation

Boundary

2000 5,333 X

1806

Griffin

Beaver Creek

2000 6,068 X

1901

Atlantic City

Common

2001 39,094 X

1903

Silver Creek

Common

2000 33,702 X

1904

Devils

Canyon

AMP

2004 3,717 X

1905

Ellis Upper

Beaver

2000 3,326 X

1906

Twin Creek

Individual

1998 7,602 X

1908

Little Popo

Agie AMP

1998 8,651 X

1911

Red Canyon

AMP

1999 3,699 X

1914 McGraw Flat

Common

2000 10,149 X

1915 Beaver AMP 2004 10,640 X

1916

Hall Creek

Individual

1998 12,711 X

1921

Level

Meadows

2000 3,271 X

1923

Atlantic

City Upper

Fenced

2000 60 X

1924

Atlantic

City Lower

Fenced

2000 78 X

1925

Hall Creek

Winter

Pasture

1998 1,305 X

1927

Upper Ellis

Ranch

2002 598 X

1928

Lower Ellis

Ranch

2002 339 X

1934

Red Canyon

Rim 1998 853 X

1939 Auer Ranch 2004 427 X

2001

Green

Mountain

Common

1999 466,474 X

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1573

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Name

Year

Assessed

Acres

Assessed

Meeting

Standards

Not Meeting

Standards

– Management Implemented

Not Meeting

Standards

– Causal

Factors Not

Determined

Not Meeting

Standards –

Other Than

Livestock

Grazing

2002

Harris

Slough

Pasture

2001 94 X

2103 Lime Kiln

Gulch

2012 1,159 X

2104 Little Warm

Sp. Cnyn

2012 315 X

2106 Fire Ridge 2012 148 X

2107 Wells 11 2012 305 X

2108 Geyser Creek 2012 829 X

2109 Cross 14 2012 643 X

2110 Little Horse

Creek

2012 720 X

2111 E A

Mountain 16

2012 1,761 X

2113 Crooked

Creek

2012 1,247 X

2115 Hat Butte 2012 893 X

2116 Elk Ridge

Southeast

2012 316 X

2117 Blue Holes 2012 682 X

2119 White Pass

31

2012 650 X

2120 Windy Ridge 2012 332 X

2121 Mason Draw 2012 6,813 X

2122 Tappan

Creek 34

2012 1,065 X

2123 Battrum

Mountain

2012 5,936 X

2125 Albright 47 2012 286 X

2126 CM 49 2012 940 X

2127 Wagon Gulch 2012 80 X

2128 Bitterroot 60 2012 691 X

2130 Cross 67 2012 591 X

2132 Stoney Point

73

2012 121 X

2210 Willow

Creek

2009 982 X

2219

Orchard

Draw

1998 1361 X

2520 Woods Basin 2012 173 X

Number of allotments 107 71 15 18 3

Total Acreage 1,019,044 266,537 673,075 47,661 31,771

Note: Data in table derived from Bureau of Land Management Lander Field Office internal databases.

Table K.4. Allotment Management Plans and Rangeland Management Agreements

Developed

Allotment Number Allotment Name AMP Implement Date Public Acres

01330 Battle Axe Lysite 08/23/89 4,298

01361 Copper Mountain (Lander) 03/29/96 270

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1574 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Allotment Number Allotment Name AMP Implement Date Public Acres

01401 Rim Pasture 05/01/92 19,037

01403 Conant Creek Common 07/15/92 47,078

01406 Poison Creek* 08/06/97 16,815

01407 Muskrat AMP 11/01/68 39,876

01408 Township Pasture* 05/16/94 19,162

01414 Anderson Winter 05/01/92 5,914

01415 Myers Pasture* 06/10/95 923

01512 South Dobie Flat 06/11/92 6752

01636 Granite Mountain Open* 03/24/93 77,896

01643 Rawlins Draw 05/21/08 6,367

01660 Home, North of Highway 06/11/92 1,353

01701 Flagg AMP 06/01/69 11,361

01703 Big Pasture 07/05/91 74,351

01802 Sand Draw AMP 05/01/66 11,905

01803 Government Draw 11/26/90 77,299

01901 Atlantic City Common 07/31/97 38,765

01903 Silver Creek Common 05/08/97 31,953

01904 Devils Canyon AMP 05/01/69 3,717

01905 Ellis Upper Beaver 05/01/70 2,370

01906 Twin Creek Individual 03/28/93 7,532

01907 Commissary Hill 06/14/94 994

01908 Little Popo Agie AMP 06/01/70 10,760

01911 Red Canyon AMP 06/01/69 4009

01914 Mcgraw Flat Common 05/08/97 11,295

01915 Beaver AMP 06/01/69 10,640

01916 Hall Creek Individual 12/20/89 14,386

01920 Salisbury AMP 11/01/69 5,384

01925 Hall Creek Winter Past 12/20/89 492

01926 McKinney Individual* 04/03/97 800

01934 Red Canyon Rim 06/14/94 853

01939 Auer Ranch 06/01/69 427

102019 Cooper Creek 10/01/87 1,402

02021 Willow Creek Allotment 10/01/87 71

02029 Diamond Hook 10/01/87 207

02219 Orchard Draw 06/09/69 804

11504 Canyon Creek 02/25/99 11,065

11505 South Deer Creek 09/23/88 11,225

11506 Deer Creek AMP 05/01/69 6,447

11507 South Cross L 06/11/92 2,347

11509 Diamond Springs 06/11/92 40,890

11510 North Willow Creek* 05/21/08 3469

11511 North Dobie Flat 06/11/92 11,435

11513 Blackjack Ranch 06/11/92 31,708

11514 Gap Pasture 06/11/92 3,604

11515 Cross L Pastures 06/11/92 1,535

11516 Basin Pasture 02/16/01 16,830

12003 Whiskey Peak 10/01/87 76,083

12005 Home, South Of Highway 06/11/92 2,560

12018 Alma Grieve Pasture 10/01/87 3,249

31519 Beef Gap Pasture 06/11/92 381

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1575

Allotment Number Allotment Name AMP Implement Date Public Acres

Total Allotments: 52 Total Acres: 790,346

Note: Data in table derived from Bureau of Land Management Lander Field Office internal databases accessed in 2012.

*Denotes Rangeland Management Agreement.

AMP Allotment Management Plan

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1576 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table K.5. Summary of Range Improvements Lander Field Office, 1986-2009

Fiscal

Year

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Grand Total

Improvement

Fences

Antelope

drop

panels

18.5 0.1 18.6

Electric

5 3 3 9 5 9 34 10 4.75 20.9 9.7 113.38

Exclosures,

enclosures

1 2 1 5.5 3.3 1.4 1.4 1 0.5 5.7 2.7 1 1 27.5

Four

strand

plus

23.1 9.7 2.7 1 1 1 1 0.52 3.13 0.35 2.7 6.8 6.2 2.05 1.4 1 1.25 64.9

Three

strand

4 1 17 4.2 9.05 11.2 5.84 6.3 29.2 11.2 4.8 3 5 2.6 9.4 2.5 126.19

Wood

Rail

0.1 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.5 1.2

Other 0.1 1.3 0.2 1 1 3.6

Fence

Total

(Miles)

23.1 13.7 4.8 2 19 11 12.6 36.7 11.2 8.7 4.52 41.8 11.3 5.6 17.5 43.8 26.9 12.1 1.25 32.9 13.2 1.75 0 0 355.4

Land

Treatments

Lake

and

Wetland

Improvement

1 3 1 5

Appendix

K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1577

Fiscal Year

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Gran- d Total

Lake

and Wetland

Improvement Total

314

Land Treatment

5 6.5 50

9 35 100 100 305.5

Land Treatment Total

1

5 6.5 50

9 35 100 10062 314.5

Management

Facility

Cattleguard

for vehicle

use

221121

7

1111 29

Corrals

and

loading

chutes

11

Line

Cabins

11

Other

11

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1578 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Fiscal Year

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Gran- d Total

Management

Facility Total

(Each)

221221

7

111111 32

Vegetation

Manipulation

Stream

Improvement

11

Chemical

313

2,30 0

2,613

Cutting or

Beating

4,00 01,22 0

5,220

Prescribed

Fire

910 160 250 100

1,22 8

12 56 2,716

Vegetation

Manipulation Total

(

Acres)

910 160 250 100

1,22 8

121 56 313

4,00 01,22 02,30 0

10,550

Water

Control/

Development

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1579

Fiscal Year

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Gran- d Total

Pipelines

(miles)

1

5

49 9.23

5

1 7.26 10

5 38

12 7.5011 109.96

Check

Dams,

earthen

(each)

22

Reser-

voirs

(each)

6

5

2261426

5

3312

5 53

Retention

Dams:

retains

water/silt;

primary

object

(each)

1113

Sheet

piling

drop

structure

(each)

112

Springs

(each)

231114

75

21132221 38

Supplemental Water

Stor-

age

(each)

112

Wells

(each)

644833132

7

2

5 12

2

5

33111 76

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1580 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Fiscal

Year

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Grand Total

Water

Control/

Development

Total

12 7 9 8 15 4 9 3 12 15 11 10 8 7 15 6 13 5 3 1 1 2 0 176

Weed

Control

(acres)

0 246 240 297 60 207 183 156 69 18 56 216 408 561 882 735 620 800 770 948 700 996 0

1,65

0

10,818

Note: Data in table derived from Bureau of Land Management Lander Field Office internal databases accessed in 2010.

Appendix

K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1581

Table K.6. Animal Unit Months Authorized, 1989-2008

Year AUMs Billed Percent Actual Use

1989 230,351 82

1990 217,122 78

1991 211,366 76

1992 217,322 78

1993 227,202 81

1994 218,276 78

1995 223,874 80

1996 247,568 89

1997 221,688 79

1998 228,616 82

1999 245,140 88

2000 246,760 88

2001 220,107 77

2002 152,198 54

2003 143,590 51

2004 177,260 63

2005 191,272 68

2006 160,237 57

2007 143,026 51

2008 165,907 59

2009 193,800 69

2010 187,698 67

2011 200,161 72

Average Total: 203,067 73

Note: Data in table derived from Bureau of Land Management Lander Field Office internal databases accessed in 2010.

AUM Animal Unit Month

February 2013

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments

and Range Improvements
1582 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Figure K.1. Range Infrastructure Development

Appendix K Livestock Grazing Allotments and Range

Improvements February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1583

Appendix L. Economic Impact Analysis

Methodology

L.1. Introduction

This appendix describes the methods and data that underlie the economic impact modeling

analysis. Input-output models such as the Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) model,

an economic impact analysis model, provide a quantitative representation of the production

relationships between individual economic sectors. Thus, the economic modeling analysis uses

information about physical production quantities and the prices and costs for goods and services.

The inputs required to run the IMPLAN model are described in the following narrative and

tables. The resulting estimates from the IMPLAN model, by alternative, can be found in the

Economic Conditions section in Chapter 4. The first section of this appendix describes general

aspects of the IMPLAN model and how it was used to estimate economic impacts. The remaining

sections provide additional detailed data used in the analysis for oil and gas, livestock grazing,

and recreation.

L.2. The IMPLAN Model

IMPLAN is a regional economic model that provides a mathematical accounting of the flow of

money, goods, and services through a region’s economy. The model provides estimates of how a

specific economic activity translates into jobs and income for the region. It includes the ripple

effect (also called the “multiplier effect”) of changes in economic sectors that may not be directly

impacted by management actions, but are linked to industries that are directly impacted. In

IMPLAN, these ripple effects are termed indirect impacts (for changes in industries that sell

inputs to the industries that are directly impacted) and induced impacts (for changes in household

spending as household income increases or decreases due to the changes in production).

This analysis used IMPLAN 2007; prior to running the model, cost and price data were converted

to a consistent dollar year (2007) using regional and sector-specific adjustment factors from the

IMPLAN model. The values in this appendix are expressed in year 2007 dollars so that the

earnings and employment estimates can be easily compared to the latest (i.e., 2007) earnings and

employment data available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The current IMPLAN model has 440 economic sectors, of which 221 are represented in the

five planning area counties. This analysis involved direct changes in economic activity for 33

IMPLAN economic sectors, as well as changes in all other related sectors due to the ripple effect.

The IMPLAN production coefficients were modified to reflect the interaction of producing sectors

in the study area. As a result, the calibrated model does a better job of generating multipliers and

the subsequent impacts that reflect the interaction between and among the sectors in the study area

compared to a model using unadjusted national coefficients. For instance, worker productivity

in oil and gas production is higher in Wyoming than the national average. Key variables used

in the IMPLAN model were filled in using data specific to Wyoming, including employment

estimates, labor earnings, and total industry output. The IMPLAN model is run at a regional

(multi-county) scale, with the coefficients that describe linkages between sectors aggregated to

the five-county level. Because of this mathematical aggregation, it is not possible to identify total

economic impacts for an individual community.

February 2013

Appendix L Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Introduction
1584 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

L.3. Oil and Gas

The economic impacts analysis for oil and gas reflects drilling, completion, and production

activities. The number of wells drilled and completed is based on the Reasonable Foreseeable

Development scenario (BLM 2009c) and the constraints applied under each alternative. Total well

numbers for each alternative are presented in Table L.1, “Oil and Gas Well Numbers” (p. 1584).

Table L.2, “Projected Oil and Gas Production (Federal Surface)” (p. 1585) presents the quantity

of oil and gas produced on federal surface, and Table L.3, “Projected Oil and Gas Production

(Federal, State, and Fee Surface)” (p. 1586) presents the projected quantity of oil and gas

produced from federal, state, and private (fee) surface.

Table L.1. Oil and Gas Well Numbers

Item Non-Coalbed

Exploratory

Non-Coalbed

Development

Coalbed Natural

Gas

Deep Total

Federal Surface

Alternative A –

Wells Drilled

237 1,511 480 46 2,274

Alternative A –

Wells Completed

142 1,209 432 37 1,820

Alternative B –

Wells Drilled

189 1,209 93 37 1,528

Alternative B –

Wells Completed

113 967 84 30 1,194

Alternative C –

Wells Drilled

237 1,516 484 47 2,284

Alternative C –

Wells Completed

142 1,213 436 38 1,828

Alternative D –

Wells Drilled

227 1,447 406 45 2,125

Alternative D –

Wells Completed

136 1,158 365 36 1,695

Federal, State, and Fee Surface

Alternative A –

Wells Drilled

331 2,107 823 73 3,334

Alternative A –

Wells Completed

199 1,686 741 58 2,683

Alternative B –

Wells Drilled

283 1,806 436 63 2,588

Alternative B –

Wells Completed

170 1,445 392 50 2,057

Alternative C –

Wells Drilled

331 2,112 827 74 3,344

Alternative C –

Wells Completed

199 1,690 744 59 2,692

Alternative D –

Wells Drilled

321 2,044 749 71 3,185

Alternative D –

Wells Completed

193 1,635 674 57 2,559

Source: BLM 2009c

Appendix L Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1585

Table L.2. Projected Oil and Gas Production (Federal Surface)

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Year

Gas (BCF) Oil

(MMBO) Gas (BCF) Oil

(MMBO) Gas (BCF) Oil

(MMBO) Gas (BCF) Oil

(MMBO)

2008 131.9 2.2 99.4 1.7 132.5 2.2 123.0 2.1

2009 147.7 2.2 111.4 1.7 148.3 2.2 137.8 2.1

2010 153.4 2.3 115.7 1.7 154.1 2.3 143.2 2.1

2011 154.5 2.3 116.5 1.7 155.2 2.3 144.1 2.1

2012 165.2 2.3 124.6 1.7 165.9 2.3 154.1 2.2

2013 180.7 2.3 136.3 1.8 181.5 2.3 168.6 2.2

2014 183.6 2.5 138.4 1.9 184.4 2.5 171.3 2.4

2015 195.9 2.4 147.7 1.8 196.7 2.4 182.8 2.2

2016 218.2 2.5 164.5 1.9 219.1 2.5 203.5 2.3

2017 213.0 2.4 160.6 1.8 214.0 2.4 198.8 2.2

2018 220.7 2.2 166.4 1.6 221.7 2.2 205.9 2.0

2019 244.0 2.4 184.0 1.8 245.1 2.5 227.6 2.3

2020 255.3 2.5 192.5 1.9 256.4 2.6 238.2 2.4

2021 270.5 2.7 204.0 2.0 271.8 2.7 252.4 2.5

2022 274.7 2.6 207.2 1.9 275.9 2.6 256.3 2.4

2023 280.8 2.8 211.8 2.1 282.1 2.8 262.0 2.6

2024 299.7 2.7 226.0 2.0 301.0 2.7 279.6 2.5

2025 305.8 2.7 230.6 2.1 307.2 2.7 285.4 2.5

2026 317.0 2.7 239.1 2.1 318.4 2.8 295.8 2.6

2027 318.4 2.9 240.1 2.2 319.9 2.9 297.1 2.7

Source: BLM 2009c. Estimated from production on federal, state, and fee surface, multiplied by the percentage of

federal wells.

BCF billion cubic feet

MMBO million barrels of oil

February 2013

Appendix L Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Oil and Gas
1586 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table L.3. Projected Oil and Gas Production (Federal, State, and Fee Surface)

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Year

Gas (BCF) Oil

(MMBO) Gas (BCF) Oil

(MMBO) Gas (BCF) Oil

(MMBO) Gas (BCF) Oil

(MMBO)

2008 194.4 3.3 162.6 2.7 195.0 3.3 185.7 3.1

2009 217.7 3.3 182.1 2.8 218.4 3.3 208.0 3.1

2010 226.3 3.3 189.2 2.8 226.9 3.4 216.1 3.2

2011 227.8 3.4 190.5 2.8 228.4 3.4 217.6 3.2

2012 243.6 3.4 203.7 2.8 244.3 3.4 232.7 3.2

2013 266.4 3.4 222.8 2.9 267.2 3.4 254.5 3.3

2014 270.7 3.7 226.3 3.1 271.5 3.7 258.6 3.6

2015 288.8 3.5 241.5 2.9 289.7 3.5 275.9 3.4

2016 321.7 3.6 269.0 3.0 322.6 3.7 307.3 3.5

2017 314.1 3.5 262.7 2.9 315.0 3.5 300.1 3.3

2018 325.4 3.2 272.1 2.7 326.4 3.2 310.9 3.1

2019 359.7 3.6 300.8 3.0 360.8 3.6 343.7 3.4

2020 376.4 3.8 314.7 3.1 377.5 3.8 359.6 3.6

2021 398.9 3.9 333.6 3.3 400.1 3.9 381.1 3.7

2022 405.0 3.8 338.7 3.2 406.3 3.8 386.9 3.6

2023 414.0 4.1 346.2 3.4 415.3 4.1 395.5 3.9

2024 441.9 3.9 369.5 3.3 443.2 3.9 422.1 3.8

2025 451.0 4.0 377.1 3.4 452.3 4.0 430.8 3.8

2026 467.4 4.0 390.9 3.4 468.9 4.1 446.6 3.9

2027 469.5 4.3 392.6 3.6 470.9 4.3 448.5 4.1

Source: BLM 2009c

BCF billion cubic feet

MMBO million barrels of oil

The costs of drilling and completing wells and producing oil and gas are also relevant for the

economic impact analysis, because a portion of these costs represents spending on local services

and locally produced products. Table L.4, “Assumptions for Analysis of Economic Impacts for Oil

and Gas Well Drilling and Completion According to Well Type” (p. 1587) provides a summary of

the costs of drilling, completion, and production for each well type (non-coalbed development,

non-coalbed exploratory, coalbed natural gas, and deep) used for the economic analysis.

Appendix L Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1587

Table L.4. Assumptions for Analysis of Economic Impacts for Oil and Gas Well Drilling

and Completion According to Well Type

Well Type

Assumption Non-Coalbed

Exploratory

Non-Coalbed

Development

Coalbed Natural Gas Deep

Well Drilling Impacts

Drilling Cost ($/well) $1,292,076 $1,174,615 $434,648 $5,603,020

Local Drilling Costs1 75% 75% 75% 75%

Local Direct Impact

($/well)

$969,057 $880,961 $325,986 $4,202,265

Local Total Impact

($/well)2 $1,350,770 $1,227,973 $445,006 $5,825,255

Multiplier (total

impact/direct impact)

1.39 1.39 1.37 1.39

Well Completion Impacts

Completion Cost

($/well)

$1,396,749 $1,269,772 $892,071 $2,580,899

Local Completion

Costs1 75% 75% 75% 75%

Local Direct Impact

($/well)

$1,047,562 $952,329 $669,053 $1,935,674

Local Total Impact

($/well)2 $1,470,533 $1,336,848 $836,215 $2,530,834

Multiplier (total

impact/direct impact)

1.40 1.40 1.25 1.31

Source: BLM 2010i. Data are based on Authorizations For Expenditure provided by

exploration and development companies, converted from 2009 to 2007 dollars using

adjustment factors (that differ by economic sector) from the IMPLAN 2007 model.

1 The local cost shares were based on the percent of total drilling or completion costs that would be

spent on goods and services purchased from the local economy. Most services come from Rock Springs,

Riverton, Rawlins and Casper. All of these communities are located within the planning area identified

counties. However, a portion of the value comes from outside the planning area, even for supplies

purchased locally, because the raw material and embedded labor comes from outside the planning area.

2 Total impacts estimated using IMPLAN include direct, indirect, and induced impacts.

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

Table L.5, “Assumptions for Analysis of Economical Impacts on Output for Oil and Gas

Production” (p. 1588) provides the assumptions used to determine the economic impact

associated with the production of oil and gas. For the analysis, Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) estimated a production cost (for gas) of $1.43 per thousand cubic feet (mcf), in year 2007

dollars, based on data from the Energy Information Administration (Taylor 2010).

February 2013

Appendix L Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Oil and Gas
1588 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table L.5. Assumptions for Analysis of Economical Impacts on Output for Oil and Gas

Production

Economic Impact Oil Production (per million barrels) Gas Production (per billion

cubic feet)

Direct Economic Impact1 $63,300,0002 $4,010,0003

Indirect Economic Impact4 $9,942,658 $629,859

Induced Economic Impact5 $2,678,476 $169,679

Total Economic Impact $75,921,134 $4,809,538

Multiplier (total impact/direct impact) 1.20 1.20

Note: All dollar values are in 2007 dollars.

1Direct economic impact is the market value of output.

2Based on an oil price of $63.30 per barrel, which is an average of the prices for 2009-2014 projected

by the Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG 2009b) and adjusted to 2007 dollars.

3Based on a gas price of $4.01 per mcf, which is an average of the prices for 2009-2014 projected by

the Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG 2009b) and adjusted to 2007 dollars.

4

Indirect impacts from IMPLAN reflect increased demand in sectors

that directly or indirectly provide supplies to the oil and gas industry.

5

Induced impacts from IMPLAN reflect increased demand in the consumer and government sectors.

mcf thousand cubic feet

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

The forecasted number of wells and production used for estimating employment impacts is

the same as for estimating impacts on labor earnings and output. Table L.6, “Assumptions for

Employment Impact Analysis for Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Completion According to

Well Type” (p. 1588) shows the direct and total employment impacts attributable to drilling

and completion.

Table L.6. Assumptions for Employment Impact Analysis for Oil and Gas Well Drilling

and Completion According to Well Type

Well Type

Employment Impact Non-Coalbed

Exploratory

Non-Coalbed

Development

Coalbed Natural Gas Deep

Well Drilling Impacts

Direct Employment

(jobs/well)

4.40 4.00 1.50 19.80

Total Employment

Impact (jobs/well)

7.59 6.90 2.50 32.80

Multiplier (Total

Impact/Direct Impact)

1.73 1.73 1.67 1.66

Average Earnings per

Job (2007 dollars)

$57,776 $57,776 $56,203 $59,044

Well Completion Impacts

Direct Employment

(jobs/well)

5.28 4.80 2.10 7.50

Total Employment

Impact (jobs/well)

8.80 8.00 3.50 12.50

Multiplier (Total

Impact/Direct Impact)

1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67

Average Earnings per

Job (2007 dollars)

$58,859 $58,859 $58,835 $59,315

Note: Direct and total employment impact and average earnings per job are calculated using IMPLAN.

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

Appendix L Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1589

Table L.7, “Assumptions for Employment Impacts Analysis for Oil and Gas

Production” (p. 1589) shows the direct and total employment impacts associated with production.

Table L.7. Assumptions for Employment Impacts Analysis for Oil and Gas Production

Employment Impact (annual

number of jobs) Oil Production (per million barrels) Gas Production (per billioncubic feet)

Direct Employment 31.7 2.0

Indirect Employment 57.0 3.6

Induced Employment 25.3 1.6

Total Employment 113.9 7.2

Multiplier (Total Impact/Direct

Impact)

3.60 3.60

Average Earnings per Job (2007

dollars)

$55,267 $55,267

Note: Direct, indirect, and induced employment impact and average earnings per job are calculated using IMPLAN.

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

The analysis of potential changes in tax revenues is based on tax rates of 12.5 percent of taxable

value for federal mineral royalties, 6 percent of taxable value for state severance taxes (Wyoming

DOR 2001c), and 7.1 percent of taxable value for local ad valorem production taxes. The average

estimated local tax rate is based on average tax rates for the planning area counties: Carbon (6.5

percent), Fremont (7.2 percent), Hot Springs (7.1 percent), Natrona (6.6 percent), and Sweetwater

(6.6 percent) (Wyoming DOR 2008). Taxable value refers to value of sales minus allowable

deductions, including certain costs of production and transportation. For purposes of estimating

tax revenues, taxable value was estimated based on the average taxable value per unit sold from

the counties in the planning area for production year 2007 using data from Wyoming Department

of Revenue (Wyoming DOR 2008). Taxable value was estimated as $58.08 per barrel for oil, and

$4.15 per mcf for natural gas (2007 dollars).

L.4. Livestock Grazing

Economic impacts due to changes in livestock grazing are a function of the amount of

forage available and the economic value of the forage. For livestock grazing, long-term

surface-disturbing actions from actions listed in Appendix T (p. 1641) could affect the authorized

animal unit months (AUMs). In addition, land disposal actions could have economic impacts;

however, those impacts were not analyzed quantitatively because it is difficult to predict the

net change in AUMs. Subsequent landowners may continue to graze the land, leaving overall

livestock production and output in the region unaffected.

The economic analysis of livestock grazing impacts is based on a long-term average (from 1989

to 2008) of actual use as a proportion of permitted use. Based on data from the BLM (BLM

2009a), actual use ranged from 51 percent to 89 percent of active use between 1989 and 2008,

with an average value of 73 percent. Whereas permitted AUMs include suspended non-use

AUMs, actual use represents the AUMs physically used on the ground in a given year. Actual use

therefore accounts for the forage value of the land in a given year, based on climatic conditions

(e.g., drought), as well as taking into account the needs of the land and the ranch operators as

evidenced by how much of their full authorized amount they utilize.

Whereas reductions in land available for livestock grazing (via long-term surface disturbance

or grazing withdrawal) are based on permitted AUMs, financial conditions on a given ranch

February 2013

Appendix L Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Livestock Grazing
1590 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

operation are determined by actual use (i.e., the actual forage value of the land that is used for

livestock) and authorized use (e.g., bank loans that are based on the available forage value of

federal leases held by the ranch operator). Thus, actual use is a more appropriate baseline from

which to measure reductions in available AUMs due to surface disturbance or restrictions on

grazing land. If reductions were measured from a baseline of permitted use, economic impacts

would be overstated.

Historical analysis of data from the Lander Field Office shows that actual use in the planning

area averaged 73 percent of permitted use from 1989 to 2008 (BLM 2009a). Thus, the economic

analysis of livestock grazing impacts uses a baseline of 204,993 AUMs, which represents 73

percent of the permitted use of 280,813 AUMs. Reductions in AUMs due to long-term surface

disturbance and grazing restrictions are also adjusted for the ratio of actual to permitted use. The

73 percent ratio is used to estimate AUMs and economic impacts for alternatives A, C, and D. For

Alternative B, there would be a substantial reduction in permitted AUMs, occurring gradually

over time as BLM adjusts permitted AUMs to comply with rangeland health standards. BLM

believes that as these adjustments come into effect, operators would increase their actual use

relative to permitted use. Therefore, in Alternative B the actual-to-permitted ratio would be

somewhat higher, moving gradually from 73 percent in the first year of analysis to 95 percent in

the final year of analysis.

Table L.8, “Estimated AUMs by Alternative” (p. 1591) provides a summary of initial AUMs and

total AUMs for each alternative. Based on current allocations of AUMs to cattle, sheep, and other

species, 91.6 percent of the AUM reduction, for the purpose of estimating changes in output and

employment, is allocated to cattle and the remainder is allocated to sheep. (Approximately one

percent of AUMs are allocated to horses, and a handful are allocated to goats; the value of these

AUMs is assumed to be approximately equivalent to those for cattle and sheep.) BLM presently

authorizes 280,813 AUMs for grazing (BLM 2009a).

Under Alternative A, BLM assumes that the present authorization will be affected only by

long-term surface disturbance (i.e., due to other surface uses). Under Alternative B, the

assumption is that no new range improvements will be constructed and that grazing management

will meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Allotments that are currently meeting

standards will not be adjusted. These assumptions result in a decrease in BLM-authorized AUMs

in Alternative B. For example, areas of an allotment greater than two miles from a watering

facility would not be included in BLM-authorized AUMs under Alternative B, and the BLM

would not build new watering facilities to provide water within two miles of these areas. As a

result, areas far from an existing watering facility would not count toward BLM-authorized

AUMs in Alternative B. Under Alternative C, the BLM would construct range improvements

so as to facilitate the maximum number of AUMs to be available for livestock grazing. These

assumptions result in somewhat lower AUMs than Alternative A, but more AUMs than in

Alternative B (BLM 2010j, BLM 2011b). Under Alternative D, the BLM would construct range

improvements in a fashion similar to that used for Alternative C and would also close some areas

to grazing; nonetheless, surface disturbance under Alternative D would be less than that under

Alternative C, so that Alternative D would result in a greater number of AUMs available in 2027.

For all alternatives, reductions in AUMs over the 20-year planning horizon were modeled in

IMPLAN, based on a gradual reduction over the planning timeline, rather than all at once.

Appendix L Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Livestock Grazing February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1591

Table L.8. Estimated AUMs by Alternative

Item Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Permitted AUMs

Initial AUMs 280,813 280,813 280,813 280,813

AUMs adjusted to

meet rangeland health

standards

0 149,364 23,432 49,696

AUMs lost due to

grazing closures

0 1,873 0 1,043

AUMs lost

from long-term

surface-disturbing

activities

1,414 853 6,890 1,301

Total AUMs lost (over

20 years)

1,414 152,054 30,322 51,808

AUMs lost per year,

total

71 7,603 1,516 2,590

Net AUMs in 2027 279,399 128,759 250,491 229,005

Actual AUMs

Estimated Percentage

of Permitted AUMs

73% 73 to 95%1 73% 73%

Estimated Actual Use

(2008)

204,993 204,993 204,993 204,993

Estimated Actual Use

(2027)

203,962 122,321 182,858 167,173

Source: BLM 2010j, BLM 2011b

1

In Alternative B, the BLM estimates that actual use relative to permitted AUMs will increase

from 73 percent to 95 percent gradually over time.

Note: Acres (e.g., land affected by surface disturbance) were converted to AUMs based on total acres authorized for

grazing and AUMs authorized for grazing.

AUM Animal Unit Month

BLM Bureau of Land Management

Due to price fluctuations, average per-AUM values for cattle and sheep are based on the 1998 to

2007 average value of production estimates from the Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service

(Taylor 2010). The value for cattle is $44.81 per AUM and the value for sheep is $43.38 per

AUM (in 2007 dollars). Including indirect and induced impacts, the value of one AUM for cattle

is $92.58 and for sheep $101.58. Table L.9, “Assumptions for Analysis of Impacts on Output

for Livestock Grazing” (p. 1592) shows the economic impact assumptions for cattle and sheep.

The direct economic impact is the estimated change in livestock output per AUM; IMPLAN

generates the indirect and induced impacts.

February 2013

Appendix L Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Livestock Grazing
1592 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table L.9. Assumptions for Analysis of Impacts on Output for Livestock Grazing

Economic Impact Cattle Sheep

Direct Economic Impact ($/AUM) $44.81 $43.38

Indirect Economic Impact ($/AUM)1 $35.98 $42.94

Induced Economic Impact ($/AUM)2 $11.76 $15.61

Total Economic Impact ($/AUM) $92.55 $101.92

Multiplier (Total Impact/Direct

Impact)

2.07 2.35

Note: All dollar values are in 2007 dollars.

1

Indirect impacts reflect increased demand in sectors that directly or indirectly provide supplies to the livestock industry.

2

Induced impacts reflect increased demand in the consumer and government sectors.

AUM Animal Unit Month

Table L.10, “Assumptions for Analysis of Employment Impacts for Livestock

Grazing” (p. 1592) provides a summary of the employment impacts according to unit changes

in livestock AUMs.

Table L.10. Assumptions for Analysis of Employment Impacts for Livestock Grazing

Employment Impact Cattle Sheep

Direct Employment (Jobs/1,000

AUMs)

0.466 0.980

Indirect Employment (Jobs/1,000

AUMs)

0.215 0.529

Induced Employment (Jobs/1,000

AUMs)

0.125 0.174

Total Employment (Jobs/1,000

AUMs)

0.806 1.683

Multiplier (Total Impact/Direct

Impact)

1.73 1.72

Average Earnings per Job (2007

dollars)

$33,469 $17,374

Note: Direct, indirect, and induced employment impacts and average earnings per job are calculated using IMPLAN.

AUM Animal Unit Month

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

L.5. Recreation

The analysis of economic impacts considers only recreation expenditures of nonresidents of the

study area. This is based on the assumption that expenditures of residents would occur in the

region regardless of the BLM’s actions that impact recreational opportunities; however, changes

in nonresident recreation patterns would alter the amount of money entering the local region.

Economic impacts from recreation are a function of recreation visitor days (RVDs) and

expenditures per day. Future RVDs were estimated based on current RVDs, recent growth rates,

and projected trends. Estimates of future RVDs were based on the professional judgment of

BLM staff (BLM 2010k), as well as a United States (U.S.) Forest Service (USFS) study that

provides forecasts of recreation activity for the Rocky Mountain region (Bowker et al. 1999).

Table L.11, “Estimated Nonresident Recreation Visitor Days” (p. 1593) provides a summary

of estimated annual RVDs.

Appendix L Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1593

Table L.11. Estimated Nonresident Recreation Visitor Days

Activity Item Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

2008 RVDs 1,283 1,283 1,283 1,283

2013 RVDs 1,571 1,717 1,487 1,637

2018 RVDs 1,923 2,298 1,724 2,090

2023 RVDs 2,354 3,075 1,999 2,667

2027 RVDs 2,767 3,882 2,250 3,242

OHV

Average Annual

Growth Rate

4.1% 6.0% 3.0% 5.0%

2008 RVDs 7,900 7,900 7,900 7,900

2013 RVDs 10,627 11,608 10,627 10,083

2018 RVDs 14,295 17,056 14,295 12,868

2023 RVDs 19,230 25,060 19,230 16,424

2027 RVDs 24,378 34,094 24,378 19,963

Hunting

Average Annual

Growth Rate

6.1% 8.0% 6.1% 5.0%

2008 RVDs 600 600 600 600

2013 RVDs 774 730 803 842

2018 RVDs 997 888 1,075 1,180

2023 RVDs 1,286 1,081 1,438 1,655

2027 RVDs 1,576 1,264 1,815 2,170

Fishing

Average Annual

Growth Rate

5.2% 4.0% 6.0% 7.0%

2008 RVDs 66,185 66,185 66,185 66,185

2013 RVDs 88,871 101,834 84,471 97,247

2018 RVDs 119,333 156,684 107,808 142,888

2023 RVDs 160,235 241,078 137,594 209,950

2027 RVDs 202,842 340,301 167,246 285,635

Other Dispersed

Recreation

Average Annual

Growth Rate

6.1% 9.0% 5.0% 8.0%

Source: BLM 2010k

OHV Off-highway vehicle

RVD recreation visitor days

The estimates for average expenditure per visitor day, in 2007 dollars, are $85.72 for fishing

(WGFD 2008, USFWS 2008b); $130.34 for hunting (Responsive Management 2004); $52.18 for

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (Foulke et al. 2006), and $57.71 for other dispersed recreation

(Stynes and White 2003). Table L.12, “Assumptions for Analysis of Impacts on Output for

Recreation Activities” (p. 1594) shows the direct, indirect, and induced output per RVD for each

recreation activity, in 2007 dollars.

February 2013

Appendix L Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Recreation
1594 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table L.12. Assumptions for Analysis of Impacts on Output for Recreation Activities

Economic Impact OHV (per RVD) Hunting (per RVD) Fishing (per RVD) Other Dispersed

(per RVD)

Direct Economic

Impact1 $52.18 $130.34 $85.72 $57.71

Indirect Economic

Impact2 $7.40 $31.60 $11.70 $8.63

Induced Economic

Impact3 $6.11 $22.72 $11.19 $7.26

Total Economic

Impact

$65.69 $184.67 $108.61 $73.60

Multiplier (total

impact/direct impact)

1.26 1.42 1.27 1.28

Sources: WGFD 2008, USFWS 2008b, Responsive Management 2004, Foulke et al. 2006,

Stynes and White 2003, Taylor 2010.

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

1Direct economic impact is the average expenditure per visitor day.

2

Indirect impacts from IMPLAN reflect increased demand in sectors that directly or indirectly

provide support for the recreation industry.

3

Induced impacts from IMPLAN reflect increased demand in the consumer and government sectors.

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

OHV Off-highway vehicle

RVD recreation visitor day

Table L.13, “Assumptions for Employment Impacts Analysis for Recreation

Activities” (p. 1594) provides a summary of employment impacts assumed according to unit

changes in RVDs.

Table L.13. Assumptions for Employment Impacts Analysis for Recreation Activities

Employment Impact

(annual number

of jobs)

OHV (per 1,000

RVDs)

Hunting (per 1,000

RVDs)

Fishing (per 1,000

RVDs)

Other Dispersed

(per 1,000 RVDs)

Direct Employment 0.58 1.89 1.02 0.64

Indirect Employment 0.06 0.26 0.09 0.07

Induced Employment 0.06 0.22 0.10 0.07

Total Employment 0.70 2.37 1.22 0.78

Multiplier (Total

Impact/Direct Impact)

1.21 1.26 1.19 1.22

Average Earnings per

Job (2007 dollars)

$20,486 $22,399 $21,547 $21,858

Note: Direct, indirect, and induced employment impact and average earnings per job are calculated using IMPLAN.

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

OHV Off-highway vehicle

RVD recreation visitor day

Appendix L Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1595

Appendix M. Wyoming BLM Mitigation

Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and

Disruptive Activities

Wyoming Mitigation Guidelines are a compilation of practices employed by the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) to mitigate impacts from surface disturbance. They apply to activities such

as road or pipeline construction, range improvements, and permitted recreation activities. The

guidelines are designed to protect resources such as soils and vegetation, wildlife habitat, and

cultural or historic properties. The guidelines are presented as an appendix of the Resource

Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for easy reference as they

apply to many resources and derive from many laws. All BLM RMPs have included these

guidelines as appendices. Public comment on the guidelines, per se, has not been requested.

The guidelines are not land use decisions; rather they are examples of mitigation measures that

could be applied, as appropriate, based on site-specific National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) analysis for individual proposals. Comment on the use and application of specific

mitigation measures can be made during the NEPA process for individual proposals. Because

mitigation measures change or are modified, based on new information, the guidelines are updated

periodically for all field offices in Wyoming.

These guidelines are primarily for the purpose of attaining statewide consistency in how

requirements are determined for avoiding and mitigating environmental impacts and resource and

land use conflicts. Consistency in this sense does not mean that identical requirements would

be applied for all similar types of land use activities that may cause similar types of impacts.

Nor does it mean that the requirements or guidelines for a single land use activity would be

identical in all areas.

There are two ways the mitigation guidelines are used in the RMP and EIS process: (1) as part of

the planning criteria in developing the RMP alternatives; and (2) in the analytical processes of

both developing the alternatives and analyzing the impacts of the alternatives. In the first case,

an assumption is made that any one or more of the mitigations will be appropriately included as

conditions of relevant actions being proposed or considered in each alternative. In the second

case, the mitigations are used (1) to develop a baseline for measuring and comparing impacts

among the alternatives; (2) to identify other actions and alternatives that should be considered; and

(3) to help determine whether more stringent or less stringent mitigations should be considered.

The EIS for the RMP does not decide or dictate the exact wording or inclusion of these guidelines.

Rather, the guidelines are used in the RMP and EIS process as a tool to help develop the RMP

alternatives and to provide a baseline for comparative impact analysis in arriving at RMP

decisions. These guidelines will be used in the same manner in analyzing activity plans and

other site-specific proposals. These guidelines and their wording are matters of policy. As such,

specific wording is subject to change primarily through administrative review, not through the

RMP and EIS process. Any further changes that may be made in the continuing refinement of

these guidelines and any development of program-specific standard stipulations will be handled in

another forum, including appropriate public involvement and input.

February 2013

Appendix M Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines

for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities
1596 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

PURPOSE

The purposes of the “Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines” are (1) to reserve, for the BLM,

the right to modify the operations of all surface and other human presence disturbance activities

as part of the statutory requirements for environmental protection; and (2) to inform a potential

lessee, permittee, or operator of the requirements that must be met when using BLM-administered

public lands. These guidelines have been written in a format that will allow for (1) their direct use

as stipulations, and (2) the addition of specific or specialized mitigation following the submission

of a detailed plan of development or other project proposal and an environmental analysis.

Those resource activities or programs currently without a standardized set of permit or operation

stipulations can use the mitigation guidelines as stipulations or as conditions of approval, or as a

baseline for developing specific stipulations for a given activity or program.

Because use of the mitigation guidelines was integrated into the RMP and EIS process and will be

integrated into the site-specific environmental analysis process, the application of stipulations

or mitigation requirements derived through the guidelines will provide more consistency with

planning decisions and plan implementation than has occurred in the past. Application of the

mitigation guidelines to all surface and other human presence disturbance activities concerning

BLM-administered public lands and resources will provide more uniformity in mitigation than

has occurred in the past.

MITIGATION GUIDELINES

Surface Disturbance Mitigation Guideline

Surface disturbance will be prohibited in any of the following areas or conditions. Exception,

waiver, or modification of this limitation may be approved in writing, including documented

supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer.

● Slopes in excess of 25 percent

● Within important scenic areas (Visual Resource Management Class I and II areas)

● Within 500 feet of surface water and/or riparian-wetland areas

● Within either 1⁄4 mile or the visual horizon (whichever is closer) of historic trails

● Construction with frozen material or during periods when the soil material is saturated or

when watershed damage is likely to occur

Guidance

The intent of the surface disturbance mitigation guideline is to inform interested parties

(potential lessees, permittees, or operators) that when one or more of the five conditions exist,

surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited unless or until a permittee or his designated

representative and the surface management agency arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of

anticipated impacts. This negotiation will occur prior to development.

Specific criteria (e.g., 500 feet from water) have been established based upon the best information

available. However, specific geographical areas and seasons must be delineated at the field level.

Exception, waiver, or modification of requirements developed from this guideline must be based

upon environmental analysis of the proposal (e.g., activity plan, plan of development, Plan of

Appendix M Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines

for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1597

Operation, and Application for Permit to Drill [APD]) and, if necessary, must allow for other

mitigation to be applied on a site-specific basis.

Wildlife Mitigation Guideline

A. To protect important big game winter habitat, activities or surface use will not be allowed

from November 15 to April 30 within certain areas encompassed by the authorization. The

same criteria apply to defined big game birthing areas from May 1 to June 30.

Application of this limitation to operation and maintenance of a developed project must be

based on environmental analysis of the operational or production aspects.

Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing,

including documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer.

B. To protect important raptor and/or sage and sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat, activities or

surface use will not be allowed from February 1 to July 31 within certain areas encompassed

by the authorization. The same criteria apply to defined raptor and game bird winter

concentration areas from November 15 to April 30.

Application of this limitation to operation and maintenance of a developed project must be

based on environmental analysis of the operational or production aspects.

Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing,

including documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer.

C. No activities or surface use will be allowed on that portion of the authorization area

identified within (legal description) for the purpose of protecting (e.g., sage/sharp-tailed

grouse breeding grounds, and/or other species/activities) habitat.

Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing,

including documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer.

D. Portions of the authorized use area legally described as (legal description), are known or

suspected to be essential habitat for (name) which is a threatened or endangered species.

Prior to conducting any onsite activities, the lessee/permittee will be required to conduct

inventories or studies in accordance with BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

guidelines to verify the presence or absence of this species. In the event that (name)

occurrence is identified, the lessee/permittee will be required to modify operational plans

to include the protection requirements of this species and its habitat (e.g., seasonal use

restrictions, occupancy limitations, facility design modifications).

Guidance

The Wildlife Mitigation Guideline is intended to provide two basic types of protection: seasonal

restriction and prohibition of activities or surface use (2c). Item 2d is specific to situations

involving threatened or endangered species. Legal descriptions will ultimately be required and

should be measurable and legally definable. There are no minimum subdivision requirements

at this time. The area delineated can and should be defined as necessary, based upon current

biological data, prior to the time of processing an application and issuing the use authorization.

The legal description must eventually become a part of the condition for approval of the permit,

plan of development, and/or other use authorization.

February 2013

Appendix M Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines

for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities
1598 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The seasonal restriction section identifies three example groups of species and delineates three

similar timeframe restrictions. The big game species including elk, moose, deer, pronghorn, and

bighorn sheep, all require protection of crucial winter range between November 15 and April 30.

Elk and bighorn sheep also require protection from disturbance from May 1 to June 30, when

they typically occupy distinct calving and lambing areas. Raptors include eagles, accipiters,

falcons (peregrine, prairie, and merlin), buteos (ferruginous and Swainson’s hawks), osprey, and

burrowing owls. The raptors and sage and sharp-tailed grouse require nesting protection between

February 1 and July 31. The same birds often require protection from disturbance from November

15 through April 30 while they occupy winter concentration areas.

Item 2c, the prohibition of activity or surface use, is intended for protection of specific wildlife

habitat areas or values within the use area that cannot be protected by using seasonal restrictions.

These areas or values must be factors that limit life-cycle activities (e.g., sage-grouse strutting

grounds, known threatened and endangered species habitat).

Exception, waiver, or modification of requirements developed from this guideline must be based

upon environmental analysis of the proposal (e.g., activity plan, plan of development, Plan of

Operation, APD) and, if necessary, must allow for other mitigation to be applied on a site-specific

basis.

Cultural Resource Mitigation Guideline

When a proposed discretionary land use has potential for affecting the characteristics which

qualify a cultural property for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), mitigation will be

considered. In accordance with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act, procedures specified

in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800 will be used in consultation with the Wyoming

State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in arriving

at determinations regarding the need and type of mitigation to be required.

Guidance

The preferred strategy for treating potential adverse effects on cultural properties is “avoidance.”

If avoidance involves project relocation, the new project area may also require cultural resource

inventory. If avoidance is imprudent or unfeasible, appropriate mitigation may include excavation

(data recovery), stabilization, monitoring, protection barriers and signs, or other physical and

administrative measures.

Reports documenting results of cultural resource inventory, evaluation, and the establishment

of mitigation alternatives (if necessary) shall be written according to standards contained in

BLM Manuals, the cultural resource permit stipulations, and in other policy issued by the BLM.

These reports must provide sufficient information for Section 106 consultation. Reports shall be

reviewed for adequacy by the appropriate BLM cultural resource specialist. If cultural properties

on, or eligible for, the NRHP are located within these areas of potential impact and cannot be

avoided, the Authorized Officer shall begin the Section 106 consultation process in accordance

with the procedures contained in 36 CFR 800.

Mitigation measures shall be implemented according to the mitigation plan approved by the

BLM Authorized Officer. Such plans are usually prepared by the land use applicant according to

BLM specifications. Mitigation plans will be reviewed as part of Section 106 consultation for

NRHP eligible or listed properties. The extent and nature of recommended mitigation shall be

commensurate with the significance of the cultural resource involved and the anticipated extent of

Appendix M Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines

for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1599

damage. Reasonable costs for mitigation will be borne by the land use applicant. Mitigation must

be cost effective and realistic. It must consider project requirements and limitations, input from

concerned parties, and be BLM approved or BLM formulated.

Mitigation of paleontological and natural history sites will be treated on a case-by-case basis.

Factors such as site significance, economics, safety, and project urgency must be taken into

account when making a decision to mitigate. Authority to protect (through mitigation) such

values is provided for in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Section 102(a)(8).

When avoidance is not possible, appropriate mitigation may include excavation (data recovery),

stabilization, monitoring, protection barriers and signs, or other physical and administrative

protection measures.

Special Resource Mitigation Guideline

To protect (resource value), activities or surface use will not be allowed (i.e., within a specific

distance of the resource value or between date to date) in (legal description).

Application of this limitation to operation and maintenance of a developed project must be based

on environmental analysis of the operational or production aspects.

Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing,

including documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer.

Example Resource Categories (Select or identify category and specific resource value):

a. Recreation areas

b. Special natural history or paleontological features

c. Special management areas

d. Sections of major rivers

e. Prior existing rights-of-way

f. Occupied dwellings

g. Other (specify)

Guidance

The Special Resource Mitigation Guideline is intended for use only in site-specific situations

where one of the first three general mitigation guidelines will not adequately address the concern.

The resource value, location, and specific restrictions must be clearly identified. A detailed

plan addressing specific mitigation and special restrictions will be required prior to disturbance

or development and will become a condition for approval of the permit, plan of development,

or other use authorization.

Exception, waiver, or modification of requirements developed from this guideline must be based

upon environmental analysis of proposals (e.g., activity plans, plans of development, plans of

operation, APD) and, if necessary, must allow for other mitigation to be applied on a site-specific

basis.

No Surface Occupancy Guideline

February 2013

Appendix M Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines

for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities
1600 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

No Surface Occupancy (NSO) will be allowed on the following described lands (legal description)

because of (resource value).

Example Resource Categories (Select or identify category and specific resource value):

a. Recreation Areas (e.g., campgrounds, historic trails, national monuments)

b. Major reservoirs/dams

c. Special management area (e.g., known threatened or endangered species habitat, areas

suitable for consideration for wild and scenic rivers designation)

d. Other (specify)

Guidance

The No Surface Occupancy Mitigation Guideline is intended for use only when other mitigation

is determined insufficient to adequately protect the public interest and is the only alternative to

“no development” or “no leasing.” The legal description and resource value of concern must be

identified and be tied to an NSO land use planning decision.

Waiver of, or exception(s) to, the NSO requirement will be subject to the same test used to

initially justify its imposition. If, upon evaluation of a site-specific proposal, it is found that less

restrictive mitigation would adequately protect the public interest or value of concern, then

a waiver or exception to the NSO requirement is possible. The record must show that because

conditions or uses have changed, less restrictive requirements will protect the public interest. An

environmental analysis must be conducted and documented (e.g., environmental assessment, EIS,

etc., as necessary) in order to provide the basis for a waiver or exception to an NSO planning

decision. Modification of the NSO requirement will pertain only to refinement or correction of the

location(s) to which it applied. If the waiver, exception, or modification is found to be consistent

with the intent of the planning decision, it may be granted. If found inconsistent with the intent

of the planning decision, a plan amendment would be required before the waiver, exception,

or modification could be granted.

When considering the “no development” or “no leasing” option, a rigorous test must be met and

fully documented in the record. This test must be based upon stringent standards described in

the land use planning document. Since rejection of all development rights is more severe than

the most restrictive mitigation requirement, the record must show that consideration was given

to development subject to reasonable mitigation, including “no surface occupancy.” The record

must also show that other mitigation was determined to be insufficient to adequately protect the

public interest. A “no development” or “no leasing” decision should not be made solely because

it appears that conventional methods of development would be unfeasible, especially where an

NSO restriction may be acceptable to a potential permittee. In such cases, the potential permittee

should have the opportunity to decide whether or not to go ahead with the proposal (or accept the

use authorization), recognizing that an NSO restriction is involved.

Appendix M Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines

for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1601

Appendix N. Standard Oil and Gas

Stipulations

Operations will not be approved which, in the opinion of the Authorized Officer, would

unreasonably interfere with the orderly development and/or production from a valid existing

mineral lease issued prior to this one for the same lands.

Lease Notice 1

Under Regulation 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3101.1 2 and terms of the lease (Bureau

of Land Management [BLM] Form 3100 11), the Authorized Officer may require reasonable

measures to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses, and users not addressed

in lease stipulations at the time operations are proposed. Such reasonable measures may include,

but are not limited to, modification of siting or design of facilities, timing of operations, and

specification of interim and final reclamation measures, which may require relocating proposed

operations up to 200 meters, but not off the leasehold, and prohibiting surface disturbance

activities for up to 60 days.

The lands within this lease may include areas not specifically addressed by lease stipulations that

may contain special values, may be needed for special purposes, or may require special attention

to prevent damage to surface and/or other resources. Possible special areas are identified below.

Any surface use or occupancy within such special areas will be strictly controlled or, if absolutely

necessary, prohibited. Appropriate modifications to imposed restrictions will be made for the

maintenance and operation of producing wells.

1. Slopes in excess of 25 percent

2. Within 500 feet of surface water and/or riparian-wetland areas

3. Construction with frozen material or during periods when the soil material is saturated or

when watershed damage is likely to occur

4. Within 500 feet of Interstate highways and 200 feet of other existing rights of way (i.e.,

United States [U.S.] and state highways, roads, railroads, pipelines, powerlines)

5. Within 1⁄4 mile of occupied dwellings

6. Material sites

Guidance

The intent of this notice is to inform interested parties (potential lessees, permittees, operators) that

when one or more of the above conditions exist, surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited

unless or until the permittee or the designated representative and the surface management agency

arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts. This negotiation will occur

prior to development and become a condition for approval when authorizing the action.

Specific threshold criteria (e.g., 500 feet from water) have been established based upon the

best information available. However, geographical areas and time periods of concern must be

delineated at the field level (i.e., “surface water and/or riparian-wetland areas” may include both

intermittent and ephemeral water sources or may be limited to perennial surface water).

February 2013 Appendix N Standard Oil and Gas Stipulations
1602 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The referenced oil and gas leases on these lands are hereby made subject to the stipulation that the

exploration or drilling activities will not interfere materially with the use of the area as a materials

site/free use permit. At the time operations on the above lands are commenced, notification

will be made to the appropriate agency. The name of the appropriate agency may be obtained

from the proper BLM Field Office.

Lease Notice 2

Background

The BLM, by including National Historic Trails (NHTs) within its National Landscape

Conservation System, has recognized these trails as national treasures. Our responsibility is to

review the strategy for management, protection, and preservation of these trails. The NHTs in

Wyoming, which include the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express Trails, as

well as the Nez Perce Trail, were designated by Congress through the National Trails System

Act (Public Law [P.L.] 90-543; 16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1241-1251) as amended through

P.L. 106-509 dated November 13, 2000. Protection of the NHTs is normally considered under

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (P.L. 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) as amended

through 1992 and the National Trails System Act. Additionally, Executive Order 13195, “Trails

for America in the 21st Century,” signed January 18, 2001, states in Section 1: “Federal agencies

will ... protect, connect, promote, and assist trails of all types throughout the U.S. This will

be accomplished by ... (b) Protecting the trail corridors associated with national scenic trails

and the high priority potential sites and segments of NHTs to the degrees necessary to ensure

that the values for which each trail was established remain intact.” Therefore, the BLM will be

considering all impacts and intrusions to the NHTs, their associated historic landscapes, and all

associated features, such as trail traces, grave sites, historic encampments, inscriptions, natural

features frequently commented on by emigrants in journals, letters and diaries, or any other

feature contributing to the historic significance of the trails. Additional NHTs will likely be

designated amending the National Trails System Act. When these amendments occur, this notice

will apply to those newly designated NHTs as well.

Strategy

The BLM will proceed in this objective by conducting a viewshed analysis on either side of the

designated centerline of the NHTs in Wyoming, except, at this time, for the Nez Perce Trail,

for the purpose of identifying and evaluating potential impacts to the trails, their associated

historic landscapes, and their associated historic features. Subject to the viewshed analysis and

archeological inventory, reasonable mitigation measures may be applied. These may include,

but are not limited to, modification of siting or design of facilities to camouflage or otherwise

hide the proposed operations within the viewshed. Additionally, specification of interim and

final reclamation measures may require relocating the proposed operations within the leasehold.

Surface-disturbing activities will be analyzed in accordance with the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) as amended through P.L. 94-52, July 3,

1975 and P.L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and the NHPA, supra, to determine if any design, siting,

timing, or reclamation requirements are necessary. This strategy is necessary until the BLM

determines that, based on the results of the completed viewshed analysis and archeological

inventory, the existing land use plans (Resource Management Plans) have to be amended.

The use of this lease notice is a predecisional action, necessary until final decisions regarding

surface-disturbing restrictions are made. Final decisions regarding surface-disturbing restrictions

Appendix N Standard Oil and Gas Stipulations February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1603

will take place with full public disclosure and public involvement over the next several years if

BLM determines that it is necessary to amend existing land use plans.

Guidance

The intent of this notice is to inform interested parties (potential lessees, permittees, operators)

that when any oil and gas lease contains remnants of NHTs, or is located within the viewshed of

an NHT's designated centerline, surface-disturbing activities will require the lessee, permittee,

operator or, their designated representative, and the surface management agency to arrive at

an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts. This negotiation will occur prior to

development and become a condition for approval when authorizing the action.

Attachment to Each Lease

Notice to Lessee

Provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) of 1920, as amended by the Federal Coal Leasing

Amendments Act of 1976, affect an entity's qualifications to obtain an oil and gas lease. Section

2(a)(2)(A) of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 201 (a)(2)(A), requires that any entity that holds and has held a

federal coal lease for 10 years beginning on or after August 4, 1976, and who is not producing

coal in commercial quantities from each such lease, cannot qualify for the issuance of any other

lease granted under the MLA. Compliance by coal lessees with Section 2(a)(2)(A) is explained in

43 CFR 3472.

In accordance with the terms of this oil and gas lease, with respect to compliance by the initial

lessee with qualifications concerning federal coal lease holdings, all assignees and transferees

are hereby notified that this oil and gas lease is subject to cancellation if: (1) the initial lessee as

assignor or as transferor has falsely certified compliance with Section 2(a)(2)(A), or (2) because

of a denial or disapproval by a State Office of a pending coal action, i.e., arms-length assignment,

relinquishment, or logical mining unit, the initial lessee as assignor or as transferor is no longer in

compliance with Section 2(a)(2)(A). The assignee, sublessee or transferee does not qualify as

a bona fide purchaser and, thus, has no rights to bona fide purchaser protection in the event of

cancellation of this lease due to noncompliance with Section 2(a)(2)(A).

Information regarding assignor, sublessor or transferor compliance with Section 2(a)(2)(A) is

contained in the lease case file as well as in other BLM records available through the State Office

issuing this lease.

February 2013 Appendix N Standard Oil and Gas Stipulations
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1605

Appendix O. Fire Management

Table O.1, “Fire Management by Fire Management Unit” (p. 1606) provides a description of fire

management by Fire Management Units within the planning area.

February 2013 Appendix O Fire Management
1606 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table O.1. Fire Management by Fire Management Unit

FMU Suppression

Objectives

Use of Wildland

Fire and

Prescribed Fire

Non-Fire Fuels

Treatments

Objectives

Post-Fire

Rehabilitation

and/or Restoration

Objectives

Community

Protection/

Community

Assistance

Prescribed

Fire/Non-Fire

Fuels Treatments

Restoration and

Rehabilitation

Green and Crooks

Mountain FMU

Firefighter and

public safety,

protection of

communities,

development and

improvements,

and protection of

resources (e.g.,

cultural, wildlife

habitat, watersheds,

etc.).

Use prescribed fire

treatments to create

a vegetative mosaic

and maintain

natural openings

in the mountain

shrub habitat within

the FMU. Emphasis

on the mountain

shrub communities

(mountain

sagebrush,

bitterbrush,

snowberry,

buckbrush and

other associated

shrubs) and

marginal timbered

communities,

including areas

where there is

declining health

of aspen stands.

Multi-year stated

treatments will be

utilized to revitalize

aspen stands

and to improve

and maintain

forest health in

conifer-timbered

communities.

Post-fire

rehabilitation and

restoration of

wildfires will be

initiated to allow

reestablishment

of native plant

communities and

to stabilize erosive

soil conditions on a

case-by-case basis.

Coordinate fuels

reduction plans

and actions with

private land and

homeowners to

significantly reduce

the likelihood of

landscape-level fire

within the WUI and

thereby enhance

public safety.

Initiate prescribed

burning in the

next 10 years on

approximately

1,500 acres within

mountain shrub

and marginal

timber communities

to improve

wildlife habitat,

create opening

in vegetation

communities

with conifer

encroachment,

restore aspen stands

that are decadent

and in declining

health, and reduce

hazardous fuels.

A portion of the

1,500 acres may

also be treated

with mechanical,

manual chemical, or

biological methods.

Restoration and

rehabilitation will

emphasize the

reestablishment

of habitat diversity

and ecosystem

health on a

case-by-case

basis. Site-specific

projects will be

considered to meet

the objectives

as identified in

the Resource

Management Plan.

Sweetwater Valley

FMU

Firefighter and

public safety,

protection of

communities,

development and

improvements,

and protection of

resources (e.g.,

cultural, wildlife

Allow fire use to

protect, maintain,

and enhance

resources, and as

nearly as possible,

be allowed to

function in its

natural ecological

role. Use of

Chemical and

various methods

of mechanical

treatments are

planned within

this FMU over the

next 10 years to

improve sagebrushgrassland health

Post-fire

rehabilitation

and restoration

of wildlands fires

would be initiated,

if necessary, to

protect and sustain

ecosystems, public

health, safety, and

There are

no identified

communities at

risk in this FMU.

Initiate prescribed

burning on

approximately

20,000 acres

of sagebrushgrassland and

marginal timbered

communities in

the next 10 years

Post-fire

rehabilitation and

restoration of

wildfires would

be initiated, if

necessary, to

protect and sustain

ecosystems,

public health,

Appendix

O Fire Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1607

FMU Suppression

Objectives

Use of Wildland

Fire and

Prescribed Fire

Non-Fire Fuels

Treatments

Objectives

Post-Fire

Rehabilitation

and/or Restoration

Objectives

Community

Protection/

Community

Assistance

Prescribed

Fire/Non-Fire

Fuels Treatments

Restoration and

Rehabilitation

habitat, watersheds,

etc.).

prescribed fire

is desired to

reintroduce fire

into the ecosystem.

Create and maintain

a vegetative

mosaic across the

landscape. Air

quality objectives

would be met.

and to allow greater

water infiltration

into the soil.

to help communities

protect

infrastructure.

to reduce fuels

and encourage

restoration of

ecosystem health.

A portion of the

20,000 acres may

also be treated

with mechanical,

manual chemical, or

biological methods.

safety, and to

help communities

protect

infrastructure.

Rattlesnake Hills

FMU

Firefighter and

public safety,

protection of

communities,

development and

improvements,

and protection of

resources (e.g.,

cultural, wildlife

habitat, watersheds,

etc.).

Allow fire use to

protect, maintain,

and enhance

resources, and as

nearly as possible,

be allowed to

function in its

natural ecological

role. Use of

prescribed fire

is desired to

reintroduce fire

into the ecosystem.

Create and maintain

a vegetative

mosaic across the

landscape. Air

quality objectives

would be met.

Chemical and

various methods

of mechanical

treatments will

be considered,

as needed, by a

site-specific plan to

create uneven aged

vegetative mosaics

within sagebrushgrasslands and to

improve diversity of

herbaceous species

and regeneration

of decadent aspen

stands.

Evaluate the need

for rehabilitation

or restoration

work following

disturbances

focusing on

immediate

reestablishment

of native vegetation

species suited to

local range sites.

There are

no identified

communities at

risk (as listed

on the Federal

Register) in this

FMU. Work closely

with homeowners,

ranchers, and

communities in

the FMU to develop

and implement

hazardous fuels

reduction projects

on public lands

adjacent to private

lands and structures

at risk in the event

of a landscape-level

wildland fire.

Initiate prescribed

burning on

approximately

12,000 acres

of sagebrushgrassland

communities

(primarily

improvement

of mountain

shrub habitat and

restoration of aspen

stands) over the

next 10 years

to reduce fuels

and encourage

restoration of

ecosystem health.

A portion of the

12,000 acres may

also be treated

with mechanical,

manual chemical, or

biological methods.

Projects will be

identified on an

as-needed basis to

reestablish native

vegetation species.

February 2013 Appendix

O Fire Management
1608 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

FMU Suppression

Objectives

Use of Wildland

Fire and

Prescribed Fire

Non-Fire Fuels

Treatments

Objectives

Post-Fire

Rehabilitation

and/or Restoration

Objectives

Community

Protection/

Community

Assistance

Prescribed

Fire/Non-Fire

Fuels Treatments

Restoration and

Rehabilitation

Lander Slope

FMU

Firefighter and

public safety,

protection of

communities,

development and

improvements,

and protection of

resources (e.g.,

cultural, wildlife

habitat, watersheds,

etc.).

Use prescribed fire

to reintroduce fire

into the ecosystem.

Use prescribed

fire treatments to

create a vegetative

mosaic and limit

the extent of conifer

encroachment

into sagebrush/

mountain shrub

communities, and

rejuvenate older

aspen stand and

promote aspen

regeneration. Use

prescribed fire in

the form of pile

burning to reduce

the hazardous fuel

buildup created

by thinning near

communities and

subdivisions and

also created by

cutting conifers

of vegetative

communities. Air

quality objectives

would be met.

Chemical and

various methods

of mechanical

treatments will

be considered,

as needed, by a

site-specific plan to

create uneven aged

vegetative mosaics.

Evaluate the need

for rehabilitation

or restoration

work following

disturbances

focusing on

immediate

reestablishment

of native vegetation

species suited to

local range sites.

Reduce fire risk to

WUI communities.

Develop risk

assessment and

mitigation plans for

public and private

lands.

Initiate prescribed

burning on

approximately

2,500 acres for

hazardous fuels

reduction, aspen

regeneration,

restoration of

ecosystem health

in mountain shrub

habitat (mountain

sagebrush,

bitterbrush,

serviceberry and

other associated

shrubs), and

burning of slab

piles produced

from mechanical

vegetation

treatments over

the next 10 years

to reduce fuels

and encourage

restoration of

ecosystem health.

A portion of the

2,500 acres may

also be treated

with mechanical,

manual chemical, or

biological methods.

Projects will be

identified on an

as-needed basis to

reestablish native

vegetation species.

Appendix

O Fire Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1609

FMU Suppression

Objectives

Use of Wildland

Fire and

Prescribed Fire

Non-Fire Fuels

Treatments

Objectives

Post-Fire

Rehabilitation

and/or Restoration

Objectives

Community

Protection/

Community

Assistance

Prescribed

Fire/Non-Fire

Fuels Treatments

Restoration and

Rehabilitation

Copper Mountain

FMU

Firefighter and

public safety,

protection of

communities,

development and

improvements,

and protection of

resources (e.g.,

cultural, wildlife

habitat, watersheds,

etc.).

Allow fire use to

protect, maintain,

and enhance

resources, and as

nearly as possible

be allowed to

function in its

natural ecological

role. Use of

prescribed fire

is desired to

reintroduce fire

into the ecosystem.

Create and maintain

a vegetative mosaic

and limit the

extent of conifer

encroachment

into sagebrush/

mountain shrub

communities. Air

quality objectives

would be met.

Chemical and

various methods

of mechanical

treatments will

be considered,

as needed, by a

site-specific plan to

create uneven aged

vegetative mosaics.

Evaluate the need

for rehabilitation

or restoration

work following

disturbances

focusing on

immediate

reestablishment

of native vegetation

species suited to

local range sites.

Currently, there

are no identified

communities at risk

in this FMU (as

listed in the Federal

Register).

Initiate prescribed

burning on

approximately

5,600 acres over

the next 10 years

of mountain

sagebrushgrassland

communities to

treat sagebrush

steppe with juniper

encroachment,

hazardous fuels

reduction and aspen

regeneration. A

portion of the

5,600 acres may

also be treated

with mechanical,

manual chemical, or

biological methods.

Post-fire

rehabilitation and

restoration of

wildfires would

be initiated, if

necessary, to

protect and sustain

ecosystems, public

health, safety and to

help communities

protect

infrastructure.

Dubois FMU Firefighter and

public safety,

protection of

communities,

development and

improvements,

and protection of

resources (e.g.,

cultural, wildlife

habitat, watersheds,

etc.).

Create and maintain

a vegetative

mosaic across

the landscape.

Emphasis on the

mountain shrub

communities and

marginal timbered

communities,

including area

where there is

declining health

of aspen stands.

Multi-year staged

treatments will

be utilized to

revitalize aspen

stands, rejuvenate

shrub communities,

and to improve

and maintain forest

health.

Depending upon the

size and intensity of

the burn, post-fire

rehabilitation and

restoration of

wildfires will be

initiated to allow

reestablishment

of native plant

communities and

to stabilize erosive

soil conditions.

Coordinate fuels

reduction plans and

actions with Dubois

and Union Pass

communities to

significantly reduce

the likelihood of

landscape-level fire

within the WUI and

to lower the risk

of danger to public

safety. Develop risk

assessment and fire

defense plan for

Initiate prescribed

burning on

approximately

2,400 acres over

the next 10 years of

mountain shrub and

marginal timber

communities for

hazardous fuels

reduction as well as

restoring ecosystem

health (aspen

regeneration,

treating areas

Post-fire

rehabilitation and

restoration of

wildfires would

be initiated, if

necessary, to

protect and sustain

ecosystems,

public health,

safety, and to

help communities

protect

infrastructure.

February 2013 Appendix

O Fire Management
1610 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

FMU Suppression

Objectives

Use of Wildland

Fire and

Prescribed Fire

Non-Fire Fuels

Treatments

Objectives

Post-Fire

Rehabilitation

and/or Restoration

Objectives

Community

Protection/

Community

Assistance

Prescribed

Fire/Non-Fire

Fuels Treatments

Restoration and

Rehabilitation

public lands in the

Dubois WUI area.

of conifer

encroachment and

wildlife habitat

improvement)

and burning slash

piles produced

by mechanical

operations and

timber harvest.

A portion of the

2,400 acres may

also be treated

with mechanical,

manual chemical, or

biological methods.

FMU Fire Management Unit

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface

Appendix

O Fire Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1611

Appendix P. Species Mentioned in the

Lander Field Office Resource Management

Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

Table P.1. Common and Scientific Names of Plant and Wildlife Species

Common Name Scientific Name

Plants

Alder Alnus serrulata

Arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata

Aspen Populus tremuloides

Barneby’s clover Trifolium barnebyi

Basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Beaver Rim phlox Phlox pungens

Big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata Nutt.

Bitterbrush Purshia tridentata

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger

Blowout penstemon Penstemon haydenii

Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata

Bluegrass Poa annua

Bottlebrush squirreltail Elymus elymoides

Boxelder Acer negundo

Bud sagebrush Picrothamnus desertorum

Buffalobur Solanum rostratum

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Cedar Rim thistle Cirsium aridum

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum

Cinquefoil Potentilla

Common burdock Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh.

Common St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum

Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare

Cottonwood Populus spp.

Curlycup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale

Desert yellowhead Yermo xanthocephalus

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii

Dubois milkvetch Astragalus gilviflorus var. purpureus

Dwarf mistletoe Arceuthobium spp.

Dyers woad Isatis tinctoria

Engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum

Fremont bladderpod Lesquerella fremontii

Gardner’s saltbush Atriplex gardneri

Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus

Great Basin wild rye Leymus cinereus

Green needlegrass Nassella viridula

Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus

February 2013

Appendix P Species Mentioned in the Lander

Field Office Resource Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement
1612 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Common Name Scientific Name

Hoary cress (whitetop) Cardaria draba and Cardaria pubescens Desv.

Houndstongue Cynoglossum offinale

Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis

Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides

Lady’s bedstraw Galium verum

Larkspur Delphinium occidentale

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula

Limber pine Pinus flexilis

Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta

Mat muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonis

Meadow pussytoes Antennaria arcuata

Mountain brome Bromus marginatus

Mountain mahogany Cercocarpus kunth

Mountain big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Mountain thermopsis Thermopis montana

Musk thistle Carduus nutans

Mustard Brassicaceae spp.

Needle grass Achnatherum

Owl Creek miner’s candle Cryptantha subcapitata

Ox-eye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare or Chrysanthemum leucanthemum

Perennial pepperweed (giant whitetop) Lepidium latifolium

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis

Persistent sepal yellowcress Rorippa calycina

Plains larkspur / Geyer larkspur Delphinium geyeri

Plains prickly pear Opuntia polyacantha

Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides

Poplar bud-gall mite Eriophes parapopuli

Porter’s sagebrush Artemisia porteri

Prairie junegrass Koeleria macrantha

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

Quackgrass Agropyron repens

Rocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorum

Rocky Mountain twinpod Physaria saximontana var. saximontana

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens (synonym = Centaurea repens)

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia

Russian thistle Salsola tragus

Sagebrush Artemisia spp.

Salt cedar Tamarix spp.

Sandberg bluegrass Poa secunda

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium

Showy milkweed Asclepias speciosa

Silver sage Salvia argentea

Skeletonleaf bursage Franseria discolor Nutt.

Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa

Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta

Swainsonpea Sphaerophysa salsula

Thickspike wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus

Threadleaf sedge Carex filifolia

Utah juniper Juniperus osteosperma

Ute ladies’-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis

Water birch Betula occidentalis

Appendix P Species Mentioned in the Lander

Field Office Resource Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1613

Common Name Scientific Name

Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis

Wild licorice Glycyrrhiaz lepidota

Willow Salix spp.

Wyeth lupine Lupinus wyethii

Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris

Fungi

Blister rust or white pine blister rust Cronartium ribicola

Fish

Black bullhead Ameirus melas

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Bonneville cutthroat trout Onocorhynchus clarki utah

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis

Brown trout Salmo trutta

Burbot Lota lota

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Common carp [Carp in text] Cyprinus carpio

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus

Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki

Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas

Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Green sunfish (green sunfish - bluegill hybrid) Lepomus cyanellus

Iowa darter Etheostoma exile

Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum

Lake chub Couesius plumbeus

Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae

Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus

Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi

Mountain sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus

Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus

Plains killifish Fundulus zebrinus

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio

Sand shiner Notropis stramineus

Sauger Sander canadensis

Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum

Snake River cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki spp.

Splake (brook and lake trout hybrid) Salvelinus namaycush X Salvelinus fontinalis

Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius

Stonecat Noturus flavus

Walleye Sander vitreus

White crappie Pomoxis annularis

White sucker Catostomus commersoni

Yellow perch Perca flavescens

Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri

Wildlife

American kestrel Falco sparverius

February 2013

Appendix P Species Mentioned in the Lander

Field Office Resource Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement
1614 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Common Name Scientific Name

Badger Taxidea taxus

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Barn owl Tyto alba

Beaver Castor canadensisis

Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis

Bison Bison bison

Black bear Ursus americanus

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris maculata

Boreal owl Aegolius funereus

Boreal toad (Rocky Mountain population) Anaxyrus boreas boreas

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri

Bullsnake Pituophis catenifer sayi

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis

Chukar partridge Alectoris chukar

Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii

Coot Fulica spp.

Cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus spp.

Coyote Canis latrans

Ducks and geese family Anatidae

Dusky grouse Dendragapus obscurus

Dwarf shrew Sorex nanus

Eastern yellow-bellied racer Coluber constrictor flaviventris

Elk Cervus elaphus

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

Gray partridge Perdix perdix

Gray wolf Canis lupus

Great Basin spadefoot toad Scaphiopus intermontana

Great gray owl Strix nebulosa

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Greater short-horned lizard Phrynosoma (Tapaja) hernandesi

Grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis

Ground squirrel Spermophilus sp.

Jackrabbit Lepus

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus

Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis

Long-eared owl Asio otus

Marten Martes sp.

Merlin Falco columbarius

Mink Mustela vison

Moose Alces alces

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides

Mountain lion Puma concolor

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura

Mouse Peromyscus spp.

Appendix P Species Mentioned in the Lander

Field Office Resource Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1615

Common Name Scientific Name

Mule deer Odocoileus hermionus

Muskrat Ondata zibethicus

North American wolverine Gulogulo luscus

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus

Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens

Northern pygmy owl Glaucidium californicum

Northern sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus graciosus

Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus

Pheasant Phasianus colchicus

Prairie rattlesnake Crotalus viridis

Plains spadefoot toad Spea bombifrons

Porcupine Hystricomorph hystricidae

Prairie dogs Cynomys spp.

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Rail family Rallidae

Rat Rattus spp.

Red fox Vulpes vulpes

Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus

Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus

Shrew family Soricidae

Skunk family Mephitidae

Snipe Gallinago sp.

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni

Swift fox Vulpes velox

Tiger salamander Ambystoma mavortium

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii

Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

Vole Microtus sp.

Wandering gartersnake Thamnophis elegans vagrans

Weasel Mustela spp.

Western screech owl Megascops kennicottii

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

White-tailed prairie dog Cynomys leucurus

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzum americanus

Invertebrates

February 2013

Appendix P Species Mentioned in the Lander

Field Office Resource Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement
1616 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Common Name Scientific Name

Army cutworm Euxos auxilliarius

Aphthona flea beetle Aphthona nigriscutis

Beet leafhopper Circulifer tenellus

Didymo Didymosphenia geminata

Grasshopper suborder Caelifera; order Orthoptera

Mormon cricket Anabrus simplex

Mosquito Culicidae spp.

Mosquito Culex tarsalis

Mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae

New Zealand mud snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum

Poplar bud-gall mite Eriophes parapopuli

Quagga mussel Dreissena rostriformis

Zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha

Appendix P Species Mentioned in the Lander

Field Office Resource Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1617

Appendix Q. Fire Regime and Vegetation

Condition

This appendix provides an overview of Fire Regime Groups and descriptions, fire regime condition

classifications, and a general description of the condition of corresponding vegetation types.

Table Q.1. Fire Regime Groups and Descriptions

Group Frequency Severity Severity Description

I 0-35 years Low/mixed

Generally low-severity

fires replacing less than 75

percent of the dominant

overstory vegetation; can

include mixed-severity fires

that replace up to 75 percent

of the overstory

II 0-35 years Replacement

High-severity fires

replacing greater than

75 percent of the dominant

overstory vegetation

III 35-200 years Mixed/low

Generally mixed-severity;

can also include

low-severity fires

IV 35-200 years Replacement High-severity fires

V 200+ years Replacement/any severity

Generally replacementseverity; can include

any severity type in this

frequency range

Source: DOI and The Nature Conservancy 2008

Table Q.2. Fire Regime Condition Classifications

Condition Class Severity Description

1

For the most part, fire regimes in this fire condition class are within historical

ranges. Vegetation composition and structure are intact. Therefore, the risk of

losing key ecosystem components from the occurrence of fire remains relatively

low.

2

Fire regimes on these lands have been moderately altered from their historical

range by either increased or decreased fire frequency. A moderate risk of losing

key ecosystem components has been identified on these lands.

3

Fire regimes on these lands have been substantially altered from their historical

return interval. The risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire is high.

Fire frequencies have departed from historical ranges by multiple return intervals.

Vegetation composition, structure, and diversity have been substantially altered.

Source: DOI and The Nature Conservancy 2008

The tables below are an estimate of vegetative conditions based on data from Existing Vegetation,

Fire Regimes, and Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) from regional LANDFIRE data on

biophysical settings (BpS model), as well as estimates from on the ground conditions. The

BpS model describes the vegetation, geography, biophysical characteristics, succession stage,

disturbance regime, and assumptions. It is designed to accompany the quantitative state and

transition models.

February 2013 Appendix Q Fire Regime and Vegetation Condition
1618 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table Q.3. Forest and Woodland Fire Regime Groups, Fire Regime Condition Classifications, and Vegetation Structure

and Health in the Planning Area

Vegetation Type FRCC Description

Fire Regime

Group

Landscape Level

FRCC Vegetation Structure and Health

Forest (inclusive of

major forest types;

lodgepole pine and

Douglas-fir)

Stand replacement fires dominate

FRG IV. The FRCC for the

forested communities is displaying

indicators of moderate departure

from reference conditions and is

within the timeline where stand

replacement fire would return the

communities to a vegetative state

dominated by perennial grass and

forbs with tree seedlings. Some of

these indicators include insect and

disease outbreaks and fuel loading

associated with a mature forest

stand. Some areas of the planning

area that point within the timeline

may have been altered by changes

in the fuel loading by logging and

fuels reduction activities, as well

as historic fire suppression.

IV 2 Lodgepole Pine Structure: Mid-development with mid-open to

closed canopy, 21 to 100 percent moderate to dense pole-sized

trees sometimes very dense (dog hair) trees.

Health: Fire regime of replacement severity – high (35-100

years). Very dense tree stands are more susceptible to disease

and insect infestations.

Douglas-Fir Structure: Mid-development closed to open canopy,

canopy closure is 10 percent to greater than 35 percent, with small

trees to late development with large trees with mixed understory

of grass and scattered shrubs. Some stands of Douglas-fir showing

old growth characteristics are specific areas.

Health: Fire Regime of replacement severity – (35-100 years)

high number of trees per acre more susceptible to disease and

insect infestations.

Woodlands (inclusive

of major woodland

types; juniper, aspen

and limber pine)

The majority of woodlands fall

within FRG IV with isolated

woodland stands in rock

outcrops falling within FRG

V. FRCC 2 is indicative of the

woodland communities having

moderate departure from reference

conditions. Indicators for this

FRCC include encroachment of

conifers into mature to decadent

aspen stands and encroachment of

juniper and limber pine out from

historic rocky and shallow-soiled

sites into shrub habitat.

IV and V 2 Juniper Structure: Mid-development open class, canopy 21-40

percent, and trees established usually short and widely spaced.

Health: Fire frequency 35-100+ years. This class last until trees

are approximately 100 years old then succeeds to vegetative class

with trees greater than 100 years of age.

Aspen Structure: Mid-development closed canopy 41-100

percent; dense, pole six trees in this class. Succession to different

class after 50 years. Less forb and shrub cover in understory.

Health: Succession to different class after 50 years. Less forb and

shrub cover in understory in this class.

Limber Pine Structure: Mid development open canopy 21-40

percent; trees established usually short and widely spaced.

Appendix

Q Fire Regime and

Vegetation Condition February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1619

Vegetation Type FRCC Description

Fire Regime

Group

Landscape Level

FRCC Vegetation Structure and Health

Health: Fire frequency 35-100+ years. This class last until trees

are approximately 100 years old then succeeds to vegetative class

with trees greater than 100 years of age.

Source: LANDFIRE 2010

FRG Fire Regime Group

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class

February 2013 Appendix

Q Fire Regime and

Vegetation Condition
1620 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table Q.4. Grasslands and Shrubland Fire Regime Groups, Fire Regime Condition Classifications, and Vegetation Structure

and Health in the Planning Area

Vegetation

Type

Dominant Fire

Regime Group

Estimated Landscape

Level FRCC

FRCC Description Vegetation Structure and Health

Grasslands I FRCC 1: 34 percent

FRCC 2: 26 percent

FRCC 3: 41 percent

Grasslands within the

Lander Field Office

would historically have

experienced fire return

interval of 25 years across

the landscape. These

areas have an altered

fuel loading due to a

combination of factors

including historic and

current livestock grazing,

human infrastructure and

fire suppression. Fire

frequency within this

vegetative type is far less

than would have occurred

historically, though the

potential loss of key

ecosystem components

is minimal. Vegetation

composition and structure

has been significantly

altered in FRCC 3 areas.

FRCC 1 Structure: Early development class – shrub cover minimal or

non-existent, bare ground 10-30 percent, vegetative canopy 0-30 percent

(forb cover 10-40 percent, grasses 60-90 percent), maintains vegetation

in early development, mixed-severity fire (0-37 years) does not change

successional age.

Health: Replacement fire frequency 75 years. Forb density and cover

responsive to climatic conditions, in rare flood events (500-year). Moves

vegetation to more shrubby condition mid-development, closed after down

cutting.

FRCC 2 Structure: Mid-development open to closed class – mostly stable

and resilient system with moderate canopy closure, total canopy cover

25-80 percent (grasses greater than 85 percent, forbs 0-5 percent, shrubs

0-10 percent).

Health: Replacement fire frequency of 75 years, causes transition back

to early development class; recurring drought would thin vegetation and

keep canopy open.

FRCC 3 Structure: Late development open to closed class – closed canopy

of grasses forbs and shrubs; total cover greater than 85 percent (grasses

25-50 percent, forbs 0-5 percent, shrubs 10-75 percent, 10 percent in

transition to shrub or tree dominated communities), mixed fire 35 years

moving to mid-development class.

Health: Replacement fire frequency 75 years. Extended drought would

cause transition back to mid-development class with thinning of shrubs;

flooding every 100 years would cause transition to early development class.

Sagebrush

Shrublands

IV FRCC 1: 16 percent

FRCC 2: 48 percent

FRCC 3: 35 percent

Sagebrush shrublands

within the Lander Field

Office are generally

dominated by mature to

decadent sagebrush with

a secondary component

of grass. Depending

upon their location within

FRCC 1 Structure: Early development Sagebrush cover 0-15 percent (area

depending if basin big sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush and/or mountain

big sagebrush), generally grass dominated with herbaceous cover 30-50

percent, fire frequency 0-35 years.

Health: Early development class-replacement fire occurs 150-200 years;

little to no effect by insect or disease.

Appendix

Q Fire Regime and

Vegetation Condition February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1621

Vegetation

Type

Dominant Fire

Regime Group

Estimated Landscape

Level FRCC

FRCC Description Vegetation Structure and Health

the Lander Field Office,

these sites would have

historically carried fire with

variable burnt patch size.

A combination of factors

including historic and

current livestock grazing,

human infrastructure and

fire suppression have altered

the natural disturbance

regime within the sagebrush

shrublands found in the

Lander Field Office. Key

ecosystem components

are still present, though

vegetation composition

and structure has been

significantly altered in

FRCC 3 areas.

FRCC 2 Structure: Mid-development open sagebrush cover 15-30 percent

(area depending if basin big sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush and/or

mountain big sagebrush), generally becoming shrub dominated, herbaceous

cover 10-20 percent, fire frequency same and FRCC 1.

Health: Same year span on replacement fire however some occurrence

of insect or disease impact.

FRCC 3 Structure: Late development (open and closed). Sagebrush

cover greater than 25-80 percent (area depending if basin big sagebrush,

Wyoming big sagebrush and/or mountain big sagebrush). Generally shrub

dominated with mature and over mature with suppressed understory;

herbaceous cover 10 percent; replacement fire occurs every 80-100 years.

Health: 35-100+ year frequency replacement; replacement fire may cause

transition to early development class. Insects and disease occur.

Greasewood

and Salt

Desert Shrub

IV Unspecified, needs to

be split from Sagebrush

Shrublands. Estimated to

be dominated by FRCC 1

across landscape.

Fire was very infrequent

in this vegetative type.

Fire Return Intervals are

estimated to be 200 years.

Greasewood Structure: Vegetative cover 0-20 percent and/or 21-50

percent; some grasses with greasewood sprouts and rabbitbrush present in

early development. In late development open class – greasewood shrubs

maturing or have reached maturity and would increase canopy closure;

perennial grasses still in understory.

Health: Wet periods contribute to mortality; susceptible to invasion of

nonnative grasses (cheatgrass).

Salt Desert Shrub Structure: Early development class is only class for the

vegetative type – vegetative cover is 0-20 percent; shrubland composed

of Gardener’s and mat saltbush with some winterfat, scattered forbs, and

grasses.

Health: Wet periods contribute to mortality; susceptible to invasion of

nonnative grasses (cheatgrass).

February 2013 Appendix

Q Fire Regime and

Vegetation Condition
1622 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Vegetation

Type

Dominant Fire

Regime Group

Estimated Landscape

Level FRCC

FRCC Description Vegetation Structure and Health

Mountain

Shrub

IV Unspecified, needs to

be split from Sagebrush

Shrublands. Estimated to

be dominated by FRCC 2

across landscape.

These vegetative

communities are dominated

by mature to decadent

shrub. Though these

communities are generally

in condition class 2, all of

the ecological components

are present.

Structure: In mid to late development class dominant shrubs are (dependent

on primary shrub): sagebrush 15-30 percent; shrub cover with curlleaf

mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, snowberry and rabbitbrush, and mature

sagebrush co-dominant, 30-40 percent; grasses and forbs may be present in

gaps between shrubs.

Health: Replacement fire frequency is 80-150 years. Insect and disease

may occur; weather-related mortality every 200 years would transition

to early development.

Source: LANDFIRE 2010

Vegetative structure in each vegetative class incorporates biophysical setting models for Map Zone 22; Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany woodland,

Inter-mountain Basins Mat Saltbush shrubland, Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush shrubland and steppe, Inter-Mountains Basins Big Sagebrush shrubland-Basin Big

Sagebrush, Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush shrubland-Wyoming Big Sagebrush, Inter-Mountain Basin Montane Sagebrush steppe, Inter-Mountain Basins

Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe, Inter-Mountains Basins Semi-desert Grassland, Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill-valley grassland, and Inter-Mountains

Basins Greasewood Flat.

FRG Fire Regime Group

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class

Appendix

Q Fire Regime and

Vegetation Condition February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1623

Appendix R. Lands Identified for Land

Tenure Adjustment(s)

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) land tenure program (that is, the acquisition or disposal

of land) is designed to: (1) improve management of natural resources through consolidation

of federal, state, and private lands; (2) increase recreational opportunities and preserve open

space; (3) secure key property necessary to protect endangered species and promote biological

diversity; (4) preserve archeological and historical resources; (5) implement specific acquisitions

authorized by Acts of Congress; and (6) allow for expansion of communities and consolidation

of non-federal land ownership. Alternative A carries forward all of the lands identified for land

tenure adjustment or disposal that were identified in the 1987 Resource Management Plan

(RMP). Alternatives B, C, and D identify fewer acres for disposal, based on values that were not

considered in 1987 or on other issues such as changed land ownership patterns. The lands that

were part of the 1987 decision (including ones not carried forward by alternatives B, C, and D)

are listed in Appendix S (p. 1629) and displayed in Maps 94 and 95.

Site-specific environmental review and documentation in conformance with the National

Environmental Policy Act, including completion of categorical exclusions and plan conformance

determinations where appropriate, will be accomplished for each proposed land program

action. Interdisciplinary impact analysis will be tiered within the framework of this and other

applicable environmental documents. Future shifts in policy and national priorities could result in

modifications of these provisions and changes in addressing priority lands actions; the current

emphasis on greater sage-grouse is an example of a policy shift that has impacted the land tenure

program. Land tenure adjustments must serve the public interest.

The following are some criteria that will be considered in land tenure adjustment proposals,

but they are not considered all inclusive. These criteria are meant to guide and streamline

consideration of land tenure adjustment proposals.

● Important, crucial, or critical habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants;

● Riparian-wetland areas and designated floodplains;

● Parcels that provide access to larger blocks of public land;

● Lands with special designation or management emphasis, or areas found to meet the relevance

and importance criteria for Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) management;

● Significant cultural resources, especially within the Congressionally Designated Trails

corridors;

● Recreation opportunities and benefits;

● Visual Resource Management Class I and Class II areas;

● Lands that will improve greater sage-grouse habitat, contain leks, or would facilitate greater

sage-grouse management.

Members of the public and others identified additional parcels that were not identified in the 1987

RMP for the BLM to consider for disposal or exchange. These properties are described below

and depicted on Map 141.

Lands near Big Atlantic Gulch Campground: T. 27 N., R. 90 W.,

Sec. 34: S2N2, S2, SESW.

February 2013

Appendix R Lands Identified for Land Tenure

Adjustment(s)
1624 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

These lands are in the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC and in the northeast part of the

Atlantic City common grazing allotment. Recreation is the major focus in the area, with high

seasonal use of the campground (tourists and campers in the summer and hunters in the fall

months). Although the campground is not staffed in the winter, the area is frequently visited for

cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and snowmobiles.

Lands near the National Historic Trails: T. 28 N., R. 99 W.,

Sec. 19: N2NE4, NE4NW4.

Lands near the Burnt Ranch: T. 28 N., R. 100 W.,

Sec. 17: SESW;

20: NENW;

23: SE4SE4;

24: S2NE4, NW4SW4, S2SE4;

25: NE4NW4, SW4NW4.

These lands contain many culturally important artifacts and a portion of the main branch of the

Oregon National Historic Trail. These lands are part of the Atlantic City Upper Fenced allotment.

T. 29 N., R. 101 W.,

Sec. 13: W2SW, SWSE.

Located to the north and east of Atlantic City, these lands are part of the Silver Creek grazing

allotment and partially in the National Historic Trails ACEC. Strawberry Creek joins the

Sweetwater River adjacent to these lands. The area has a number of old mining operations and

many other cultural properties. Recreation is the primary use of the land.

T. 29 N., R. 91 W.,

Sec. 6: E2SE, SWSE, SENW;

7: E2SW, SWSE;

18: NENW.

These parcels are associated with retired uranium mill sites, which have been segregated from

land use laws in preparation for withdrawal and transfer to the U.S. Department of Energy.

T. 29 N., R. 92 W.,

Sec. 1: S2NE, SW, W2SE, SESE;

2: NESW, S2SW, SE;

3: SESE;

11: All;

12: All;

Appendix R Lands Identified for Land Tenure

Adjustment(s) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1625

13:N2;

14: NE, NENW.

These parcels are associated with retired uranium mill sites, which have been segregated from

land use laws in preparation for withdrawal and transfer to the U.S. Department of Energy.

T. 29 N., R. 96 W.,

Sec. 7: SWNW, NWSW.

T. 29 N., R. 97 W.,

Sec. 1: SWSW;

2: SE;

3: N2N2, SWNE, SWNW;

4: N2, SWSW, N2SE;

5: N2NE, W2SW, SESW, SWSE;

6: W2NW, S2;

7: SENE, N2NW, SWNW, SE;

8: All;

9: N2, N2S2, SWSW;

10: N2;

11: N2, NESE;

12: All;

17: NE, W2, NWSE;

18: All.

T. 29 N., R. 98 W.,

Sec. 12: E2NE, NESE;

13: All;

14: SENE, E2SE.

T. 30 N., R. 97 W.,

Sec. 21: E2SE;

22: SW, W2SE, SESE;

26: SWNW, W2SW;

February 2013

Appendix R Lands Identified for Land Tenure

Adjustment(s)
1626 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

27: All Except SWSW;

28: N2NE, SENE, SWNW, W2SW, SESW, SWSE;

29: S2N2, NWNW, S2;

30: NENE, SW4, S2SE;

31: All;

32: All;

33: NWNE, S2NE, NW, S2;

34: All Except NWNW;

35: W2W2, SENW, E2SW, W2SE.

T. 33 N., R. 89 W.,

Sec. 9: SE;

21: NE.

These parcels are associated with retired uranium mill sites, which have been segregated from

land use laws in preparation for withdrawal and transfer to the U.S. Department of Energy.

T. 33 N., R. 90 W.,

Sec. 9: NESE;

10: NW, W2SE;

15: S2NE, NWNE, N2SE, SESE;

21: E2NE, NESE;

22: NENE.

These parcels are associated with retired uranium mill sites, which have been segregated from

land use laws in preparation for withdrawal and transfer to the U.S. Department of Energy.

T. 33 N., R. 98 W.,

Sec. 8: NENE;

17: W2SW;

18: E2E2, SWSE;

19: All Except NWNW;

20: W2.

T. 33 N., R. 99 W.,

Sec. 24: SENE;

Appendix R Lands Identified for Land Tenure

Adjustment(s) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1627

25: NWSW; S2SW;

26: SENE.

The lands in T. 33 N., R. 98 and 99 W. are in a portion of blocked lands with public access from

Johnny Behind the Rocks from the south, and from the Coal Mine Road to the north. These lands

are southwest of Hudson, Wyoming, and are part of a common grazing allotment. The lands are

used for recreation as well as grazing. The lands are within greater sage-grouse Core Area and

comprise deer and pronghorn habitat.

T. 33 N., R. 100 W.,

Sec. 5: NWNE, NW, N2SW.

T. 34 N., R. 90 W.,

Sec. 22: N2N2, S2NE, SENW, S2SW, NESE.

T. 34 N., R. 100 W.,

Sec. 32: SWNW, W2SW, SESW, SWSE.

These lands are located west of Lander, Wyoming, with Red Butte to the south and the North Fork

Road to the north. They contain important wildlife habitat and open space in an area that has

experienced significant residential development.

T. 36 N., R. 91 W.,

Sec. 24; All;

25; All;

35. All.

T. 36 N., R. 92 W.,

Sec. 22: S2S2;

23: S2S2.

February 2013

Appendix R Lands Identified for Land Tenure

Adjustment(s)
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1629

Appendix S. Lands Identified for Disposal

In Table S.1, “Lands Identified for Disposal” (p. 1630), the Lander Field Office Resource

Management Plan (RMP) specifically identifies areas available for consideration for disposal by

employing the “isolated, difficult or expensive to manage, or needed-for community expansion”

disposal criteria in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The areas below

were identified during development of the new RMP as complying with FLPMA disposal criteria.

Inclusion in Table S.1, “Lands Identified for Disposal” (p. 1630), does not constitute a decision

that the land will be disposed. Before taking any disposal action, consideration will be given to

each individual tract and will include public involvement. As stated elsewhere in the RMP,

the preferred method of disposal or acquisition of lands is through exchanges. Proposals for

disposal of lands not identified in Table S.1, “Lands Identified for Disposal” (p. 1630), will be

considered if they are consistent with the objectives of the approved RMP and could require a

land use plan amendment.

FLPMA provides for retention of the public lands in federal ownership and management by

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for multiple uses. FLPMA and other federal laws,

executive orders, and policies suggest criteria to use when categorizing public lands for retention

or disposal, and for identifying acquisition priorities. Disposal by sale, exchange, airport grant,

or Recreation and Public Purposes patent remains an option if such an action would serve an

important objective and have a public benefit.

Site-specific environmental review and documentation in conformance with the National

Environmental Policy Act, including completion of categorical exclusions and plan conformance

determinations where appropriate, will be accomplished for each proposed land program action.

Interdisciplinary impact analysis will be tiered within the framework of this and other applicable

environmental documents. Many of the foregoing provisions of this appendix are based on

current policy. Future shifts in policy and national priorities could result in modifications of

these provisions and changes in addressing priority lands actions. Land tenure adjustments must

serve the public interest.

The following are suggested criteria to consider in land tenure adjustment proposals, but the list is

not considered all inclusive. These criteria are meant to guide and streamline consideration of

land tenure adjustment proposals. Acquisition of lands will be considered, if in compliance with

the RMP, to facilitate various resource management objectives and to acquire lands with high

resource values including, but not limited to:

● Important, crucial, or critical habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants, particularly if located in

greater sage-grouse Core Area or in an Area of Critical Environmental Concern with relevant

and important wildlife values

● Riparian-wetland areas, and designated floodplains

● Parcels that provide access to blocks of public land

● Lands with or adjacent to special designation or management emphasis

● Significant cultural resources

● Recreation opportunities and benefits

● Visual Resource Management Class I and Class II areas

The preferred method for acquisition will be through exchange. Acquisitions, including

easements, can be completed through exchange, Land and Water Conservation Fund purchases, or

donations. Acquisitions of private lands will be pursued only with willing landowners.

February 2013 Appendix S Lands Identified for Disposal
1630 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table S.1. Lands Identified for Disposal

Parcel No. Legal Description Identified for Disposal in

Alternatives:

1 T. 43 N., R. 108 W.,

Sec. 27: SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

5 T. 42 N., R. 108 W.,

Sec. 21: S1⁄2NE1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

7 T. 43 N., R. 108 W.,

Sec. 35: NE1⁄4SW1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

8 T. 42 N., R. 108 W.,

Sec. 2: E2SE1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

11 T. 42 N., R. 107 W.,

Sec. 18: S1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4

240 ac.

All alternatives

14 T. 42 N., R. 107 W.,

Sec. 17: S1⁄2SW1⁄4

20: NW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4

280 ac.

All alternatives

20 T. 41 N., R. 107 W.,

Sec. 13: N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4

24: NE1⁄4NE1⁄4

160 ac.

Alternatives A and D

21 T. 41 N., R. 106 W.,

Sec. 7: SW1⁄4 SW1⁄4

18: N1⁄2NW1⁄4

T. 41 N., R. 107 W.,

Sec. 13: SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, E 1⁄2SE1⁄4

160 ac.

All alternatives

24 T. 43 N., R. 105 W.,

Sec. 32: W1⁄2NW1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

Appendix S Lands Identified for Disposal February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1631

Parcel No. Legal Description Identified for Disposal in

Alternatives:

25 T. 43 N., R. 105 W.,

Sec. 33: E1⁄2E1⁄2, W1⁄2NE1⁄4

34: W1⁄2W1⁄2

400 ac.

All alternatives

26 T. 42 N., R. 105 W.,

Sec. 4: Lots 3, 4 (N1⁄2NW1⁄4)

S1⁄2NW1⁄4

Sec. 5: SE1⁄4NE1⁄4

200.7 ac.

All alternatives

27 T. 42 N., R. 105 W.,

Sec. 3: S1⁄2SE1⁄4

10: NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4

280 ac.

All alternatives

28 T. 42 N., R. 105 W.,

Sec. 9: SW1⁄4SE1⁄4

40 ac.

Alternative D with restrictions

31 T. 41 N., R. 105 W.,

Sec. 12: Lot 2(NE1⁄4SE1⁄4)

24 ac.

Alternative D with restrictions

34 T. 41 N., R. 105 W.,

Sec. 8: NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

38 T. 40 N., R. 106 W.,

Sec. 22: SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2

360 ac.

Alternative D with restrictions

40 T. 33 N., R. 101 W.,

Sec. 2: NE 1⁄4SW1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

44 T. 33 N., R. 100 W.,

Sec. 7: Lots 3, 4 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4,

SW1⁄4SE1⁄4

161 ac.

All alternatives

February 2013 Appendix S Lands Identified for Disposal
1632 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Parcel No. Legal Description Identified for Disposal in

Alternatives:

45 T. 33 N., R. 100 W.,

Sec. 8: SW1⁄4SE1⁄4,

40 ac.

All alternatives

46 T. 33 N., R. 100 W.,

Sec. 17: NW1⁄4NW1⁄4,

40 ac.

All alternatives

48 T. 33 N., R. 100 W.,

Sec. 28: E1⁄2SE1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

49 T. 33 N., R. 100 W.,

Sec. 23: W1⁄2SW1⁄4,

80 ac.

Alternative A

53 T. 33 N., R. 99 W.,

Sec. 1: SE1⁄4SW1⁄4

Sec. 11: E1⁄2NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4

Sec. 12: W1⁄2NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4

280 ac.

All alternatives

54 T. 33 N., R. 99 W.,

Sec. 25: W1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4

Sec. 26: SE1⁄4NE1⁄4

160 ac.

Alternative D with restrictions

56 T. 32 N., R. 99 W.,

Sec. 17: SE1⁄4NW1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

59 T. 32 N., R. 100 W.,

Sec. 27: SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4

Sec. 28: S1⁄2NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4

Sec 33: NW1⁄4NE1⁄4

320 ac.

All alternatives

62 T. 32 N., R. 99 W.,

Sec. 30: SE1⁄4NE1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

Appendix S Lands Identified for Disposal February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1633

Parcel No. Legal Description Identified for Disposal in

Alternatives:

63 T. 32N.,R 99Wl,

Sec. 28: W1⁄2W1⁄2

29: SW1⁄4SW1⁄4

280 ac.

All alternatives

64 T. 32 N., R. 99 W.,

Sec. 32: S1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4

Sec. 33: SW1⁄4SW1⁄4

200 ac.

All alternatives

66 T. 31 N., R. 98 W.,

Sec. 5: Lot 4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4

80.86 ac.

All alternatives

67 T. 31 N., R. 98 W.,

Sec. 21: SE1⁄4NE1⁄4

40 ac.

Alternatives A and D

68 T. 30 N., R. 98 W.,

Sec. 7: NE1⁄4SE1⁄4

18: SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4

120 ac.

Alternatives A and D

69 T. 30 N., R. 98 W.,

Sec. 12: S1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4

N1⁄2N1⁄2

280 ac.

Alternatives A and D

71 T. 29 N., R. 100 W.,

Sec. 25: NE1⁄4

160 ac.

Alternatives A and D

72 T. 29 N., R. 98 W.,

Sec. 7: Lot 5

37.57 ac.

All alternatives

73 T. 29 N., R. 98 W.,

Sec. 10: SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4

15: NE1⁄4NE1⁄4

120 ac.

All alternatives

February 2013 Appendix S Lands Identified for Disposal
1634 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Parcel No. Legal Description Identified for Disposal in

Alternatives:

74 T. 29 N., R. 98 W.,

Sec. 11: SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4

120 ac.

All alternatives

75 T. 29 N., R. 98 W.,

Sec. 1: SW1⁄4SW1⁄4

12: W1⁄2NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4

160 Ac.

All alternatives

79 T. 31 N., R. 97 W.,

Sec. 12: SE1⁄4SE1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

80 T. 31 N., R. 96 W.,

Sec. 18: SW1⁄4SE1⁄4

19: N1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4

160 ac.

All alternatives

81 T. 31 N., R. 96 W.,

Sec. 20: SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4

29: NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, N1⁄2NE1⁄4

28: W1⁄2NW1⁄4

320 ac.

All alternatives

82 T. 31 N., R. 96 W.,

Sec. 21: SE1⁄4SE1⁄4

22: SW1⁄4SW1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

83 T. 31 N., R. 96 W.,

Sec. 27: SW1⁄4SW1⁄4

34: NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4

120 ac.

All alternatives

84 T. 31 N., R. 96 W.,

Sec. 33: E1⁄2SE1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

85 T. 31 N., R. 96 W.,

Sec. 35: N1⁄2SW1⁄4

80 ac.

Alternatives A and D

Appendix S Lands Identified for Disposal February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1635

Parcel No. Legal Description Identified for Disposal in

Alternatives:

86 T. 40 N., R. 94 W.,

Sec. 11: NE1⁄4NW1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

87 T. 40 N., R. 94 W.,

Sec. 12: SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4

T. 39 N., R. 93 W.,

Sec. 7: SW1⁄4NW1⁄4

120 ac.

All alternatives

88 T. 40 N., R. 93 W.,

Sec. 5: SE1⁄4NE1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

89 T. 40 N., R. 93 W.,

Sec. 3: SW1⁄4SW1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

90 T. 40 N., R. 92 W.,

Sec. 6: Lot 5

T. 40 N., R. 93 W.,

Sec. 1: NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4

128.15 ac.

All alternatives

91 T. 40 N., R. 93 W.,

Sec. 14: SW1⁄4NW1⁄4

15: NE1⁄4SE1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

92 T. 40 N., R. 91 W.,

Sec. 19: NW1⁄4SE1⁄4

20: NW1⁄4SW1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

93 T. 40 N., R. 92 W.,

Sec. 11: S1⁄2SE1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

96 T. 40 N., R. 91 W.,

Sec. 5: NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 (Lot 3)

45.83 ac.

All alternatives

February 2013 Appendix S Lands Identified for Disposal
1636 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Parcel No. Legal Description Identified for Disposal in

Alternatives:

97 T. 40 N., R. 91 W.,

Sec. 8: N1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4

120 ac.

All alternatives

98 T. 40 N., R. 91 W.,

Sec. 9: NE1⁄4NW1⁄4

40 ac.

Alternatives A and D

99 T. 40 N., R. 91 W.,

Sec. 10: SW1⁄4NW1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

101 T. 40 N., R. 91 W.,

Sec. 3: Lots 1, 2

91.88 ac.

All alternatives

105 T. 40 N., R. 89 W.,

Sec. 9; N1⁄2NE1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

106 T. 39 N., R. 91 W.,

Sec. 24: NW1⁄4SE1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

108 T. 39 N., R. 89 W.,

Sec. 8: E1⁄2NW1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

109 T. 39 N., R. 89 W.,

Sec. 8: NE1⁄4SE1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

110 T. 39 N., R. 89 W.,

Sec. 8: SW1⁄4SW1⁄4

17: NW1⁄4NW1⁄4

18: NE1⁄4NE1⁄4

120 ac.

All alternatives

112 T. 38 N., R. 94 W.,

Sec. 11: SW1⁄4SW1⁄4

14: W1⁄2NW1⁄4

120 ac.

All alternatives

Appendix S Lands Identified for Disposal February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1637

Parcel No. Legal Description Identified for Disposal in

Alternatives:

118 T. 37 N., R. 89 W.,

Sec. 28: NW1⁄4NW1⁄4

29: N1⁄2N1⁄2, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4,

S1⁄2NW1⁄4

320 ac.

All alternatives

119 T. 35 N., R. 92 W.,

Sec. 4: Lot 1

41.31 ac.

All alternatives

121 T. 35 N., R. 90 W.,

Sec. 10: SE1⁄4SW1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

122 T. 34 N., R. 94 W.,

Sec. 31: NE1⁄4NE1⁄4

32: NW1⁄4NW1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

124 T. 31 N., R. 92 W.,

Sec. 33: S1⁄2NW1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

127 T. 30 N., R. 93 W.,

Sec. 26: SW1⁄4SW1⁄4

34: NE1⁄4NE1⁄4

35: NW1⁄4NW1⁄4

120 ac.

Alternatives A and D

133 T. 29 N., R. 92 W.,

Sec. 23: NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 24: NW1⁄4SW1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

137 T. 30 N., R. 89 W.,

Sec. 15: S1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4

240 ac.

All alternatives

138 T. 30 N., R. 89 W.,

Sec. 9: SE1⁄4

10: NW1⁄4SW1⁄4

200 ac.

All alternatives

February 2013 Appendix S Lands Identified for Disposal
1638 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Parcel No. Legal Description Identified for Disposal in

Alternatives:

139 T. 32 N., R. 88 W.,

Sec. 3: NW1⁄4SW1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

140 T. 32 N., R. 88 W.,

Sec. 15: W1⁄2SE1⁄4

22: NW1⁄4NE1⁄4

120 Ac.

All alternatives

141 T. 32 N., R. 87 W.,

Sec. 3: Lot 4

41.58 ac.

All alternatives

143 T. 32 N., R. 87 W.,

Sec. 15: NW1⁄4NE1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

144 T. 32 N., R. 87 W.,

Sec. 31: NW1⁄4SE1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

145 T. 31 N., R. 87 W.,

Sec. 5: SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4

80 ac.

All alternatives

146 T. 31 N., R. 87 W.,

Sec. 28: W1⁄2NE1⁄4

80 ac.

Alternatives B and C and D with

restrictions

147 T. 32 N., R. 85 W.,

Sec. 13: NE1⁄4NE1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

149 T. 30 N., R. 85 W.,

Sec. 7: SE1⁄4SW1⁄4

18: E1⁄2NW1⁄4

120 ac.

Alternative A

150 T. 30 N., R. 85 W.,

Sec. 29: NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4

80 ac.

Alternative A

Appendix S Lands Identified for Disposal February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1639

Parcel No. Legal Description Identified for Disposal in

Alternatives:

151 T. 30 N., R. 85 W.,

Sec. 28: SW1⁄4SW1⁄4

40 ac.

Alternatives A and D

158 T. 29 N., R. 88 W.,

Sec. 20: NE1⁄4NW1⁄4,

E2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4,

NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NW1⁄4

19: N1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4,

SW1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4

100 ac.

Alternatives A and D

160 T. 28 N., R. 89 W.,

Sec. 24: SW1⁄4NW1⁄4

40 ac.

All alternatives

167 T. 33 N., R. 93 W.,

Sec. 33: E1⁄2E1⁄2

34: W1⁄2NW1⁄4

240 ac.

All alternatives

168 T. 29 N., R. 92 W.,

Sec. 1: NE 1⁄4, NW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4, SW 1⁄4,

NE 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4, S 1⁄2 SE 1⁄4

2: NE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4, S1/2 SW 1⁄4, SE 1⁄4

3: SE 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4

11: NE 1⁄4, E 1⁄2 NW 1⁄4, SW 1⁄4, SE 1⁄4

12: All

13: N 1⁄2

14: NE 1⁄4, NE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4

T. 29 N., R. 91 W.,

Sec, 6: NW 1⁄4, SW 1⁄4, NE 1⁄4 SEC 1⁄4,

S 1⁄2 SE 1⁄4

7: SW 1⁄4, SW 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4

18: N 1⁄2 NW 1⁄4

3,240 ac.

Alternative D

February 2013 Appendix S Lands Identified for Disposal
1640 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Parcel No. Legal Description Identified for Disposal in

Alternatives:

169 T. 33 N., R. 90 W.,

Sec. 9: Lots 1 and 2, and NE1⁄4SE1⁄4;

10: Lots 1-3, inclusive, NW1⁄4,

W1⁄2SE1⁄4, and the unpatented portion

of Mineral Survey No. 644 lying

within Sec. 10;

15: Lots 1-8, inclusive, S1⁄2NE1⁄4,

NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, and

the unpatented portions of Mineral

Survey Nos. 587 and 644 lying within

Sec. 15;

21: E1⁄2NE1⁄4, and NE1⁄4SE1⁄4;

22: Lots 1-4, inclusive, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4,

and the unpatented portions of

Mineral Survey Nos. 582, 584, and

587 lying within the N1⁄2, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4,

and N1⁄2SE1⁄4

1,091 ac.

Alternative D

170 T. 32 N., R. 85 W.,

Section 15: NW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 SE

1⁄4

2.5 ac.

Alternative D

171 T. 32 N., R. 85 W.,

Sec. 15: W1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4NW1⁄4SE 1⁄4

1.25 ac.

Alternative D

Appendix S Lands Identified for Disposal February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1641

Appendix T. Surface Disturbance and

Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

This appendix includes information on surface disturbance and reasonable foreseeable actions

within the planning area. Table T.1, “Summary of Projected Acres of Surface Disturbance by

Resource” (p. 1642) provides projected acres of surface disturbance by resource. Table T.2, “Oil

and Gas Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions” (p. 1649) provides foreseeable

development assumptions for oil and gas; the projected surface disturbances for oil and gas in

Table T.1, “Summary of Projected Acres of Surface Disturbance by Resource” (p. 1642) are based

on the project assumptions in Table T.2, “Oil and Gas Reasonable Foreseeable Development

Assumptions” (p. 1649). Assumptions for all other resources are provided in each resource section

in Table T.1, “Summary of Projected Acres of Surface Disturbance by Resource” (p. 1642).

February 2013

Appendix T Surface Disturbance and Reasonable

Foreseeable Actions
1642 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table T.1. Summary of Projected Acres of Surface Disturbance by Resource

Type of Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Mineral Resources – Leasable Oil and Gas (includes CBNG)

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 15,405 10,720 15,473 14,473

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 7,410 5,242 7,441 6,978

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 7,995 5,478 8,032 7,495

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 7,070 7,060 7,070 7,060

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 3,359 3,354 3,359 3,354

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 3,711 3,706 3,711 3,706

Mineral Resources - Locatable

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 2,169.2 2,169.2 2,169.2 2,169.2

Assumptions

Assumes that historical use will continue for the 20 years of the plan.

Notice level activities: assumes 13.46 acres of surface disturbance per year over the 20

years of the plan, based upon 282 acres total over the period 1989-2009.

Plan of Operations level activities: Assumes 95 acres of surface disturbance per year

based on 1,995.3 total acres over the last 21 years.

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 269.2 269.2 269.2 269.2

Assumptions

Assumes that the 13.46 acres per year of short-term disturbance from actions under a

Notice are reclaimed within two years.

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Assumptions

BLM manages almost all locatable minerals (see Chapter 3) and it is speculative as to

how much development will occur.

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Mineral Resources – Mineral Material Disposals

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 3,660 3,660 3,660 3,660

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 3,660 3,660 3,660 3,660

Assumptions

Assumes that historical averages of 183 acres per year will continue at past rate, which

reflects the use of mineral materials for extensive AML reclamation. Assumes that area

will be reclaimed upon completion of the removal of the material.

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Assumptions

Assumes demand for mineral material is flat. Therefore, either there will be no mineral

materials disposals on state and private land or if there are, the federal disturbance

would be reduced by an equal amount.

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Appendix

T Surface Disturbance and Reasonable

Foreseeable Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1643

Type of Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Fire and Fuels Management 1

Prescribed Fire

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 6,000 20,000 6,000 10,000

Assumptions

Assumes 300 acres

per year for 20 years.

Assumes 1,000 acres

per year for 20 years.

Assumes 300 acres

per year for 20 years.

Assumes 500 acres

per year for 20 years.

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 6,000 20,000 6,000 10,000

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Assumptions BLM considers this too speculative to quantify.

Mechanical Fuels Treatment

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 10,000 30,000 10,000 10,000

Assumptions

Assumes 500 acres

per year.

Assumes 1,500 acres

per year.

Assumes 500 acres

per year.

Assumes 500 acres

per year.

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 10,000 30,000 10,000 10,000

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions2 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500

Assumptions

Assumes 425 acres

per year.

Assumes 425 acres

per year.

Assumes 425 acres

per year.

Assumes 425 acres

per year.

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Assumptions

The number of acres of treatment may be low as it includes estimates from USFS

which may increase in the future as pine beetle damaged areas are treated. In addition,

WGFD and private parties conduct treatments which have short-term disturbance but

limited long-term disturbance.

Forest, Woodlands, and Forest Products

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 375 550 550 600

Assumptions

Assumes historic

patterns will

continue.

Assumes small

increase because

of beetle kill.

Assumes small

increase because

of beetle kill.

Assumes small

increase because of

beetle kill plus more

cutting for safety.

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 375 550 550 600

Assumptions Assumes all acres will be reclaimed.

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

February 2013 Appendix

T Surface Disturbance and Reasonable

Foreseeable Actions
1644 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Type of Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Assumptions

BLM considers this too speculative to quantify. Substantial potential exists for forest

product removal from the Shoshone National Forest. In Fiscal Year 2010, the Shoshone

National Forest had American Recovery and Reinvestment Act related stimulus funds

and treated approximately 5,000 acres. Generally, this number is very low.

Invasive Species

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Assumptions

Assumes 500 acres

per year.

Assumes 500 acres

per year.

Assumes 500 acres

per year.

Assumes 500 acres

per year.

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Assumptions

Assumes consistent treatment by WGFD on non-BLM surface, treatment by Firewise,

and private services. Assumes brush-type treatments which are fully reclaimed.

Renewable Energy - Wind-Energy Development

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 2,250 0 108,000 2,250

Assumptions

1 project with 50

turbines over 20

years

No projects

2,400 turbines,

averaged to 5,400

acres per year

1 project with 50

turbines over 20

years

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 1,250 0 60,000 1,250

Assumptions

Assumes that 25 acres/turbine will be reclaimed within 2 years and that 20 acres/turbine

will be long-term surface disturbance.

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 1,000 0 48,000 1,000

Rights-of-Way (ROW)

Telephone and Fiber Optics

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 269 54 277 144

Assumptions

13.43 per year

(historic trend)

2.68 per year

(historic trend

reduced by percent

based on areas

excluded to ROW)

13.83 per year

(historic trend

increased by

percentage reduced

areas excluded to

ROW)

7.22 per year

(historic trend

reduced by

percentage areas

excluded to ROW)

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 269 54 277 144

Assumptions Assumes that any disturbance is reclaimed within 2 years.

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Appendix

T Surface Disturbance and Reasonable

Foreseeable Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1645

Type of Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Pipelines (oil and gas)

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 8,950 7,017 9,208 8,555

Assumptions

Assumes historic

average will

continue.

Assumes historic

average reduced by

percent fewer wells.

Assumes historic

average increased by

percent more wells.

Assumes historic

average reduced by

percent fewer wells.

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 8,950 7,017 9,208 8,555

Assumptions Assumes pipelines will be reclaimed within 2 years.

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Roads2

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 231.80 36.36 237.93 115.5

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 231.80 36.36 237.93 115.5

Assumptions

Assumes historic

average will

continue.

Assumes historic

average reduced by

percent excluded to

ROW.

Assumes historic

average increased

by percent open to

ROW.

Assumes historic

average reduced by

percent excluded to

ROW.

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Powerlines (power and telephone)

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 1,969.2 393.84 2,028 984.6

Assumptions

Assumes historic

average will

continue.

Assumes historic

average reduced by

percent excluded to

ROW.

Assumes historic

average increased

by percent open to

ROW.

Assumes historic

average reduced by

percent excluded to

ROW.

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 1,969.2 393.84 2,028 984.6

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Communication Sites

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 412.8 15 425.18 57.84

February 2013 Appendix

T Surface Disturbance and Reasonable

Foreseeable Actions
1646 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Type of Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Assumptions

Assumes historic

average of 20.64

acres per year will

continue.

Assumes minor

expansion of

designated sites will

be disturbed at a rate

lower than historical

average.

Assumes historic

average increased

by percent open to

ROW.

Assumes minor

expansion of

designated sites will

be disturbed at a rate

lower than historical

average.

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 412.8 57.84 425.18 57.84

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Other Facilities3

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 39 30.6 40 37.32

Assumptions

Assumes historic

average of 1.95

acres per year will

continue.

Assumes 1.53 acres

(historic average

reduced by percent

fewer wells).

Assumes 2 acres per

year acres (historic

average increased by

percent more wells).

Assumes 1.87 acres

(historic average

reduced by percent

fewer wells).

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 39 30.6 40 37.32

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Livestock Grazing

Spring Development

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 82.4 0 88.4 45.76

Assumptions

Assumes 4.12 acres

per year.

Assumes 0 acres per

year.

Assumes 4.42 acres

per year.

Assumes 2.29 acres

per year.

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 82.4 0 88.4 45.76

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Reservoir/Pit Development

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 220 0 240 121

Assumptions

Assumes 11 acres

per year.

Assumes 0 acres per

year.

Assumes 12 acres per

year.

Assumes 6 acres per

year.

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 220 0 240 121

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Appendix

T Surface Disturbance and Reasonable

Foreseeable Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1647

Type of Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Fence Development

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 443.8 0 1,432 620

Assumptions

Assumes 22.19 acres

per year.

Assumes no fences.

Assumes 71.6 acres

per year.

Assumes 31 acres

per year.

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 443.8 0 1,432 620

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Well Development

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 113.8 0 236 60.4

Assumptions

Assumes 5.69 acres

per year.

Assumes no wells.

Assumes 11.80 per

year.

Assumes 3.02 acres

per year.

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 113.8 0 236 60.4

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Cumulative Disturbance

Total Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 52,591 74,689 160,065 53,894

Total Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 40,152 67,186 99,433 42,441

Total Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 12,439 7,502 60,631 11,453

Total Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Total Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Total Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

February 2013 Appendix

T Surface Disturbance and Reasonable

Foreseeable Actions
1648 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Type of Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Cumulative Long-Term Acres of Disturbance Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

1 Areas disturbed by mechanical fuels treatment will naturally be reclaimed within 3 to 5 years; areas disturbed by prescribed

fire will naturally be reclaimed within 3 to 5 years.

2 Approximately 50 percent of roads would be oil and gas related (based on the Reasonable Foreseeable Development

Scenario for Oil and Gas, Lander Field Office, Wyoming).

3 Historically, these facilities are oil and gas.

AML abandoned mine land

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CBNG coalbed natural gas

ROW right-of-way

USFS United States Forest Service

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Appendix

T Surface Disturbance and Reasonable

Foreseeable Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1649

Table T.2. Oil and Gas Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions

Well Projections Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Well Projections on BLM-Administered Land for Existing Active Wells and All New Wells (short-term)

Existing Wells (total) 887 887 887 887

Non-coalbed Exploratory 113 113 113 113

Non-coalbed Development 722 722 722 722

CBNG 5 5 5 5

Deep 47 47 47 47

New Wells (total) 2,274 1,528 2,284 2,125

Non-coalbed Exploratory 237 189 237 227

Non-coalbed Development 1,511 1,209 1,516 1,447

CBNG 480 93 484 406

Deep 46 37 47 45

Well Projections on BLM-Administered Land for All New Producing Wells and Existing Active Wells Less Abandonments (long-term)

Existing Wells (total) 675 675 675 675

Non-coalbed Exploratory 85 85 85 85

Non-coalbed Development 545 545 545 545

CBNG 5 5 5 5

Deep 40 40 40 40

New Wells (total) 1,820 1,194 1,828 1,695

Non-coalbed Exploratory 142 113 142 136

Non-coalbed Development 1,209 967 1,213 1,158

CBNG 432 84 436 365

Deep 37 30 38 36

Well Projections on Non-BLM-Administered Land for Existing Active Wells and All New Wells (short-term)

Existing Wells 1,377 1,377 1,377 1,377

Non-coalbed Exploratory 180 180 180 180

Non-coalbed Development 1,148 1,148 1,148 1,148

CBNG 23 23 23 23

Deep 26 26 26 26

New Wells 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060

Non-coalbed Exploratory 94 94 94 94

Non-coalbed Development 596 597 596 597

CBNG 343 343 343 343

Deep 27 26 27 26

Well Projections on Non-BLM-Administered Land for All New Producing Wells and Existing Active Wells Less Abandonments (long-term)

Existing Wells 1,102 1,102 1,102 1,102

Non-coalbed Exploratory 145 145 145 145

February 2013 Appendix

T Surface Disturbance and Reasonable

Foreseeable Actions
1650 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Well Projections Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Non-coalbed Development 926 926 926 926

CBNG 11 11 11 11

Deep 20 20 20 20

New Wells 864 864 864 864

Non-coalbed Exploratory 56 56 56 56

Non-coalbed Development 477 478 477 478

CBNG 309 309 309 309

Deep 22 21 22 21

Assumptions

Surface disturbance resulting from the well projections above assume the following acres of surface

disturbance for each type of well from well pads, access roads, and flow lines:

● Short-term well projections (new wells):

○ Non-coalbed exploratory (12.5 acres of surface disturbance per well)

○ Non-coalbed development (6 acres of surface disturbance per well)

○ CBNG (5.5 acres of surface disturbance per well)

○ Deep (16 acres of surface disturbance per well)

● Long-term well projections:

○ Non-coalbed exploratory (9 acres of surface disturbance per well)

○ Non-coalbed development (4 acres of surface disturbance per well)

○ CBNG (3.5 acres of surface disturbance per well)

○ Deep (10 acres of surface disturbance per well)

Source: Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas, Lander Field Office, Wyoming (BLM 2009c)

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CBNG coalbed natural gas

Appendix

T Surface Disturbance and Reasonable

Foreseeable Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1651

Appendix U. Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

U.1. Introduction

This air resources technical support document describes the data and methodology used to

conduct and serve as the basis for the air quality impact analysis included in Chapter 4 of the

Lander Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

U.1.1. Study Area

The study area for this analysis is focused on the Lander Field Office planning area and includes

cumulative emission sources and potential impacts to Class I areas within 100 kilometers of the

planning area. Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I areas are afforded

special protection under the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA). This study includes the following Class I

areas, which were selected due to their close proximity to the Lander Field Office.

● Bridger Wilderness Area

● Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area

● Washakie Wilderness Area

● Yellowstone National Park

● Teton Wilderness Area

● Grand Teton National Park

U.1.2. Pollutants Addressed in the Analysis

The basic framework for controlling air pollutants in the United States is mandated by the CAA

and its amendments and the 1999 Regional Haze Regulations. The CAA addresses criteria air

pollutants, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants, the

PSD program, and emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The Regional Haze

Regulations address visibility impairment.

Criteria pollutants are those for which NAAQS have been established. Ambient air concentrations

of these constituents greater than the national standards represent a risk to human health. Criteria

pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone

(O3), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a

group of pollutants for which there is no established ambient air quality standard but which

are regulated under the CAA. VOCs are organic compounds that participate in photochemical

reactions in the atmosphere and are critical to O3 formation. HAPs are those pollutants that

cause or may cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth

defects, or adverse environmental and ecological impacts. The United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has issued reference concentrations for evaluating the inhalation

risk for cancerous and noncancerous health impacts for chronic inhalation. Pollutants that are

responsible for degradation of visibility and atmospheric deposition include sulfur and nitrogen

compounds and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Nitric acid and nitrate are not emitted directly

into the air, but form in the atmosphere from industrial and automotive emissions of nitrogen

oxides (NOx). Sulfate is formed in the atmosphere from industrial emissions of SO2. Deposition

February 2013

Appendix U Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Introduction
1652 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

of these compounds can adversely impact terrestrial and aquatic vegetation, soil chemistry, and

aquatic chemistry. Ambient concentrations of these pollutants can cause reduced visibility (haze).

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are those pollutants that are effective at trapping heat in the earth’s

atmosphere and have been attributed to climate change. These pollutants include carbon dioxide

(CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).

The air pollutants addressed in this analysis included criteria pollutants (NOx, PM10, PM2.5, CO,

SO2, and O3), VOCs, HAPs, and GHGs (specifically CO2, CH4, and N2O). These pollutants were

included in this analysis because: 1) they were identified as compounds that had potential to be

emitted by management actions and activities within the planning area; 2) sufficient production

and operational data was available to estimate emissions; and, 3) scientifically defensible or actual

emission factors were available to quantify emissions. Lead, a criteria pollutant, was primarily

a concern before the widespread use of unleaded gasoline and emissions from fuel combustion

were a concern. Lead was not included in this analysis as emissions from projected activities

would be negligible. Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride were not

included in the analysis of GHGs because the proposed management activities and actions are not

typically sources of these pollutants and emissions would be negligible or zero.

U.1.3. Thresholds of Significance

Criteria Pollutants

In order to protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air resources, EPA established NAAQS.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has established Wyoming Ambient Air

Quality Standards (WAAQS). Primary standards are set at the level required to protect human

health with an "adequate margin of safety" and must safeguard the public as a whole. Secondary

standards are set at the level that protects public welfare, which is defined to include all forms

of environmental damage, including but not limited to impacts on visibility, water, soil, and

climate. Table U.1, “National and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards” (p. 1652) shows

the current NAAQS and WAAQS. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) cannot authorize

any activity that would not conform to all applicable local, state, tribal, and federal air quality

laws, regulations, standards.

Table U.1. National and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards

National Ambient Air Quality Standards Wyoming Ambient Air

Quality Standards

Primary Secondary Primary

Pollutant Averaging

Time

(ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3)

1 hour 35 (a) 35,000 40,000 None 35 35,000

40 (mg/

m3 Carbon )

Monoxide

8 hour 9 (a) 9,000 10,000 None 9 9,000

10 (mg/

m3)

Lead

Rolling

3-month

--- --- 0.15 Same as Primary --- --- 0.15

1 hour 0.1 100 (b) 189 None --- --- ---

Nitrogen

Dioxide

Annual

(Arithmetic

Mean)

0.053 53 100 Same as Primary 0.05 50 100

Appendix U Technical Support Document for Air

Resources

Thresholds of Significance February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1653

National Ambient Air Quality Standards Wyoming Ambient Air

Quality Standards

Primary Secondary Primary

Pollutant Averaging

Time

(ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3)

24 hour --- --- 150 (c) Same as Primary --- --- 150 (c)

PM10

Annual

(Arithmetic

Mean)

None None --- --- 50

24 hour --- --- 35 (d) Same as Primary --- --- 35 (d)

PM2.5

Annual

(Arithmetic

Mean)

--- --- 15.0 (e) Same as Primary --- --- 15.0 (e)

Ozone 8 hour 0.075 (f) 75 147 Same as Primary 0.08 80 157

1 hour 0.075 75 (g) 197 None --- --- ---

3 hour None 0.5 (a) 500 1,300 0.50 500 1,300

Sulfur 24 hour None None 0.10 100 260

Dioxide Annual

(Arithmetic

Mean)

None None 0.02 20 60

1/2 hour

average

--- --- --- --- --- --- 0.05 50 70 (h)

Hydrogen

Sulfide 1/2 hour

average

--- --- --- --- --- --- 0.03 30 40 (i)

Note: Bold indicates the standard as written in the corresponding regulation. Other values are conversions.

(a) Not to be exceeded more than once per year. (b) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile

of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 100 ppb (effective January 22,

2010). (c) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. (d) To attain this standard, the

3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area

must not exceed 35 μg/m3(effective December 17, 2006). (e) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the

weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed

15.0 μg/m3. (f) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average

ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective

March 27, 2008). (g) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour

average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb (effective June 22, 2010). (h) Not to be exceeded

more than two times per year. (i) Not to be exceeded more than two times in any five consecutive days.

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter

The CAA includes provisions for the PSD in designated areas. The goal of the PSD program

is “to preserve, protect and enhance the air quality in national parks, national wilderness

areas, national monuments, national seashores and other areas of special national or regional

natural, recreation, scenic or historic value.” A classification system was established identifying

allowable amounts of additional air quality degradation (increments) which would be allowed

above legally established baseline levels (Table U.2, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Increments” (p. 1654)). PSD Class I areas have the greatest limitations, with a very limited

amount of additional degradation allowed, primarily national parks and wilderness areas. The

remainder of the nation (outside non-attainment and maintenance areas) was designated as

PSD Class II areas, where moderate deterioration and controlled growth is allowed. In its

project specific EISs, BLM may compare cumulative concentrations of air pollutants to the PSD

increments as an indication of a level of concern.

February 2013

Appendix U Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Thresholds of Significance
1654 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Increments

Pollutant Averaging Period

PSD Increment – Class

I (μg/m3)

PSD Increment – Class

II (μg/m3)

3 hour 25 512

24 hour 5 91

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Annual 21 20

Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hour 8 30

Annual 4 17

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual 2.5 25

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour None None

8 hour None None

Lead 3 months 3 months None None

Source: 40 CFR 51.166(c)

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

Hazardous Air Pollutants

Section 112 of the CAA lists more than 180 chemicals as HAPs. In addition, Sections 112(d)

and 112(g) require regulatory agencies to establish Maximum Achievable Control Technology

(MACT) Standards for sources that emit HAPs. Any source that emits or has the potential to emit

10 tons per year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAPs

is considered a major source and will require a Title V, Part 70, operating permit review and

permit. In addition to MACT standards, EPA has listed (on its Air Toxics Database) Reference

Exposure Levels (RELs) for many of the HAPs. RELs are defined as concentrations at or below

which no adverse health effects are expected.

Visibility

Changes in visibility or regional haze are caused by fine particles and gases scattering and

absorbing light. A 1.0 deciview (dv) change in light extinction is considered potentially significant

in mandatory Federal PSD Class I areas as described in the EPA Regional Haze Regulations (40

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §51.300 et seq.). A 1.0-dv change is defined as approximately

a 10 percent change in the extinction coefficient (corresponding to a 2 to 5 percent change in

contrast, for a black target against a clear sky, at the most optically sensitive distance from an

observer), which is a small but noticeable change in haziness under most circumstances when

viewing scenes in mandatory Federal Class I areas. For multi-source projects located within range

of a Class I area, changes in extinction of less than 5 percent (0.5 dv) are generally considered

unlikely to result in adverse impacts to visibility. Changes in extinction greater than 10 percent

(1.0 dv) are generally considered unacceptable and will likely require additional more refined

impact analysis typically including an evaluation of mitigation measures.

Atmospheric Deposition

The National Park Service (NPS) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have

established thresholds to evaluate nitrogen and sulfur deposition within Class I areas. These

deposition analysis thresholds are defined as 0.005 kilogram per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr) in the

western United States for both nitrogen and sulfur. These thresholds are typically used to analyze

project alone impacts. Cumulative impacts are typically compared to the level of concern, which

is defined by the NPS and USFWS as 3 kg/ha/yr for N and 5 kg/ha/yr for sulfur (Fox et al.1989)

Appendix U Technical Support Document for Air

Resources

Thresholds of Significance February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1655

in Rocky Mountain regions. Deposition rates that are below the level of concern are believed to

cause no adverse impacts.

Lake Chemistry

The USFWS considers lake chemistry changes to be potentially significant if the screening

methodology predicts decreases in acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) of more than defined

limits of acceptable change (LAC). A lake’s LAC depends on its background ANC value. The

LAC is defined as a 10 percent change for lakes with ANC background values greater than 25

microequivalents per liter (meq/l) and is defined as a change of 1 meq/l for lakes with ANC

background values less than 25 meq/l. If a lake’s ANC is predicted to decrease by more than the

applicable LAC then potential changes to lake chemistry may cause adverse effects and a more

detailed analysis of lake chemistry impacts would be required.

U.1.4. Emissions Generating Activities Included in Analysis

Air pollutant emissions were estimated for 11 different types of management actions or activities

that were identified as having the potential to generate emissions of the specified pollutants. The

following is a list summarizing the 11 sectors and the specific activities under each sector for

which potential emissions were quantified.

Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development

● Well pad and compressor station pad construction

● Road construction and maintenance

● Well drilling, completion, and testing

● Well completion flares

● Well workovers

● Construction vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Maintenance vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Commuting vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Natural gas fired compressors

● Dehydrator, separator, and water tank heaters

● Dehydrator vents

● Tank venting, flashing, and loadout

● Wellhead equipment leaks

● Pneumatic pumps and devices

● Well pad and road reclamation

● Wind erosion

Leasable Minerals – Coalbed Natural Gas Development

● Well pad, compressor station pad, and water disposal well pad construction

● Road construction and maintenance

● Well drilling, completion, and testing

● Well workovers

● Construction vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Maintenance vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Commuting vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Natural gas fired compressors

February 2013

Appendix U Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Emissions Generating Activities Included in Analysis
1656 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Dehydrator and tank heaters

● Dehydrator vents

● Wellhead equipment leaks

● Pneumatic pumps and devices

● Well pad and road reclamation

● Wind erosion

Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining

● Construction vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Maintenance vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Commuting vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Exploratory drilling

● Exploratory excavation and reclamation

● Mine development excavation and reclamation

● Product handling, transfer, and storage

Locatable Minerals – Gold Mining

● Construction vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Maintenance vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Commuting vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Exploratory drilling

● Exploratory excavation and reclamation

● Mine development excavation and reclamation

● Product handling, transfer, and storage

Locatable Minerals – Uranium Mining

● Construction vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Maintenance vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Commuting vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Injection well, production well, and monitoring well construction

● Well drilling and workovers

● Road and pipeline construction

● Road and well pad maintenance and reclamation

● Transport of resin

Salable Minerals – Sand, Gravel, and other Mineral Development

● Construction vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Maintenance vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Commuting vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Product handling, transfer, and storage

● Wind erosion

Fire Management and Ecology – Planned and Prescribed Fire

● Heavy equipment exhaust and fugitive dust

● Commuting vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Mechanical equipment (chainsaws, etc.) exhaust

● Smoke from prescribed fire

Appendix U Technical Support Document for Air

Resources

Emissions Generating Activities Included in Analysis February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1657

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen Communities Management

● Heavy equipment and mechanical equipment exhaust and fugitive dust associated with tree

harvesting, pole and post harvesting, firewood collection, tree salvaging, and weed control

● Commuting vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, and Corridor Projects

● Heavy equipment and mechanical equipment exhaust and fugitive dust associated with the

construction of wind energy projects, telephone and fiber optics sites, pipelines, roads,

powerlines, and communication sites.

● Commuting vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

● Recreation trail and road maintenance

● Off-highway vehicles (OHVs)

Land Resources – Livestock Grazing

● Heavy equipment exhaust and fugitive dust associated with construction of springs, reservoirs,

wells, pipelines, fences, and reservoir maintenance

● Commuting vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust

● Enteric fermentation and manure

There were some management activities that emissions were not estimated for because

development potential was low, emissions were considered to be minor, or insufficient data was

available to calculate emissions. Emissions from the following management actions were not

estimated because the potential for development was considered low: coal mining, phosphate

mining, oil shale development, geothermal development, gemstones and lapidary materials

development. Emissions from the following management actions were not estimated because: (1)

the level of activity is not expected to change between alternatives, (2) the magnitude of emissions

from the activity is considered to be very small in comparison to other management activities, or

(3) sufficient operational or production data was not available to quantify emissions: wildfires,

invasive species and pest management, grassland and shrub land management, wild horse

management and activities related to heritage and visual resources, socioeconomic resources, and

fish and wildlife resources.

U.2. Methodology

The air quality impact analysis included compiling an emissions inventory for existing conditions

within the planning area as well as for projected future development. Emissions were estimated

for each alternative and a comparative analysis was conducted. Emissions were based on

reasonable future actions that were identified as having the potential to result in increased

emissions of air pollutants. Emission estimates calculated for this analysis should not be assumed

to be a definitive representation of future emissions. Depending on future economic conditions,

mining and drilling methods, air pollution control technologies, and other factors that influence

the pace of development, actual future emissions could be considerably different than presented.

In addition, the size, location, and pace of development for future projects are not well known at

this planning stage. For these reasons, it was determined that air quality modeling would not be

included in this analysis. The input data required to conduct a modeling analysis was not available

February 2013

Appendix U Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Methodology
1658 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and although “surrogate” input data could be used to force model results, those results would not

be valuable to the decision maker or the public. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) analysis for actual development projects, the BLM will conduct an air quality analysis

that will include air dispersion modeling of both project and cumulative impacts for those projects

that may have a significant impact on air quality within the planning area.

For this analysis, air pollutant emissions were estimated over the 20 year life of project (LOP) for

three specific years. The base year selected was 2008 because actual production, operational,

and development data was most recently available for this year. The year 2018 was selected for

the short-term year as development and construction projections for this year were the greatest

across all resources. The year 2027 was selected as being representative of operational emissions

over the long term. This section gives specific details on how emissions were estimated for the

air resources analysis. The tables located in Section U.4, “Summary of Emissions” (p. 1665), at

the end of this appendix summarize the projected total annual emissions by resource for 2008,

2018, and 2027.

U.2.1. Emission Calculations by Category

Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development and Coalbed Natural Gas

Development

The basis for emission calculations for conventional oil and gas development was the Reasonable

Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for Oil and Gas, Lander Field Office (BLM 2009c).

According to the RFD up to 2,517 new conventional oil and natural gas wells and 827 coalbed

natural gas (CBNG) wells may be drilled within the Lander Field Office planning area during

the next 20 years. These numbers reflect the maximum level of development that can be

expected during this time period. Table U.3, “Number of Existing and Proposed Wells by

Alternative” (p. 1658) shows the number and types of wells for each alternative for both BLM

wells and for non-BLM (private, state, or other federal) wells.

Table U.3. Number of Existing and Proposed Wells by Alternative

Conventional Wells

(Non-BLM)

Conventional Wells

(BLM)

CBNG Wells

(Non-BLM)

CBNG Wells

(BLM)

Existing 2,236 882 28 5

Year – 2018

Alternative A 2,511 1,794 823 480

Alternative B 2,152 1,435 436 93

Alternative C 2,517 1,800 827 484

Alternative D 2,436 1,719 749 406

Year – 2027

Alternative A 1,942 1,388 741 432

Alternative B 1,665 1,110 392 84

Alternative C 1,948 1,392 744 436

Alternative D 1,885 1,330 674 365

Source: BLM 2009c

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CBNG coalbed natural gas

The following list identifies the assumptions and sources of information used in the calculations

of emissions for this category:

Appendix U Technical Support Document for Air

Resources

Emission Calculations by Category February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1659

● Emission factors for drill rig engines, diesel powered heavy (construction) equipment,

generator engines, and other oil field equipment were obtained from EPA NONROADS

2008a Emissions Model (EPA 2009c).

● Emission factors for natural gas fired compressor engines were based on NSPS Emission

Standards for Spark Ignition Engines 40 CFR Part 60 JJJJ, recent Best Available Control

Technology (BACT) determinations by Wyoming DEQ, EPA’s AP-42 Compilation of

Air Pollutant Emission Factors (EPA 1995a), and American Petroleum Institute’s (API)

Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation Methodologies for the Oil and

Natural Gas Industry (American Petroleum Institute 2009).

● Emission factors for on-road vehicles were obtained from EPA’s MOBILE6.2 Motor Vehicle

Emission Factor Model (EPA 2006).

● Emission factors for VOC and HAPs emissions oil and gas sources were based on EPA’s

AP-42, EPA’s Protocol for Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates (EPA 1995b), Gas

Technology Institute GRI-GLYCalc 4.0 emissions estimating software (GTI 2000), EPA’s

Natural Gas STAR Program (EPA No Date), Wyoming DEQ's Oil and Gas Production

Facilities Permitting Guidance, Chapter 6, Section 2 revised March 2010 (Wyoming DEQ

2010b), and field gas analyses from the planning area.

● Activity and equipment data were obtained from resource specialists in the Lander Field

Office, existing operator experience from producing fields in the planning area, and

professional judgment.

● It was assumed that (1) natural gas fired engines would be equipped with non-selective

catalytic reduction technology, (2) VOC and HAP emissions from dehydrators, tank flashing,

pneumatic pumps, and produced water tanks would be controlled to 98 percent efficiency

per Wyoming DEQ BACT, (3) and drill rig engines would comply with Tier II or better

emission standards.

● It was assumed that water application as a best management practice (BMP) would reduce

fugitive dust emissions from ground‐disturbing activities during construction and reclamation

activities and maintenance of roads by 50 percent from uncontrolled levels.

Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining

Emissions estimates for future bentonite mining were based on operating data from the one

existing bentonite mine in the planning area and development potential estimated in the Final

Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report (BLM 2009b). Because alternatives A

and C would include the fewest restrictions on potential bentonite mining, it was assumed that in

addition to the existing mine, two additional mines with similar operational characteristics would

be operational in 2018 and 2027. Because of the additional restrictions on mineral development

and the location of designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern under Alternative B,

it was assumed that only the existing mine would operate in the future. For Alternative D it

was assumed that the existing mine and one additional mine would be operational in 2018 and

2027. Emission factors for this category were obtained from EPA’s AP-42 (EPA 1995a), EPA’s

NONROADS 2008a Emissions model (EPA 2009c), EPA’s MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission

factor model (EPA 2006), and API's Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation

Methodologies for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry (American Petroleum Institute 2009).

Locatable Minerals – Gold Mining

Emissions estimates for future gold mining were based on the Decision Record and Environmental

Assessment for the Rattlesnake Hills Gold Exploration Drilling Project, (BLM 2010l) located

in the planning area, development potential estimated in the Final Mineral Occurrence and

February 2013

Appendix U Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Emission Calculations by Category
1660 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Development Potential Report (BLM 2009b), and existing exploratory operations. It was assumed

that the gold mining operations in the planning area consist of typical surface mining techniques

and all processing is done offsite outside of the planning area. It was assumed that gold mining

operations would be similar for all alternatives. Future emissions were based on the assumption

that exploratory operations would continue and one mine similar to the proposed Rattlesnake Hills

Project would be operational in 2018 and 2027. Emission factors for this category were obtained

from EPA’s AP-42, EPA’s NONROADS 2008a Emissions model, and EPA’s MOBILE6.2 motor

vehicle emission factor model.

Locatable Minerals – Uranium Mining

Emission estimates for future uranium mining were based on the Plan of Operations for the

proposed Gas Hills project, development potential estimated in the Final Mineral Occurrence

and Development Potential Report (BLM 2009b), and existing exploratory operations. The

assumptions for uranium mining were predicated on in-situ recovery mining. It is likely that

open pit and underground conventional mines will be proposed and approved. However, the air

emissions associated with those future projects will be analyzed on a site-specific basis. As of

2011, the BLM had begun preparing an EIS for a Plan of Operations for a conventional mine. Air

emissions, including those associated with the Heap Leach Mill operation, are being analyzed.

Those data are not yet available for inclusion in this document. Future emissions were based on

the assumption that exploratory operations would continue and two mines similar to the proposed

Gas Hills Project would be operational in 2018 and 2027 for alternatives. Emission factors for

this category were obtained from EPA’s AP-42, EPA’s NONROADS 2008a Emissions model,

EPA’s MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission factor model, and API Compendium of Greenhouse

Gas Emissions Estimation Methodologies for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry.

Salable Minerals – Sand, Gravel, and other Mineral Development

Emissions were estimated for this category primarily for sand and gravel sales and free use

permits but also included moss rock, limestone, and soil and fill permits and sales. Existing

emission calculations were based on the average of permit and sales records from 1989 – 2009.

Future emission calculations were based on the permit and sales records and the Final Mineral

Occurrence and Development Potential Report (BLM 2009b). Future emissions were calculated

using estimated tons of material to be processed for each alternative. Emission factors for this

category were obtained from EPA’s AP-42, EPA’s NONROADS 2008a Emissions model, and

EPA’s MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission factor model.

Fire Management and Ecology – Planned and Prescribed Fire

Emission estimates for fire management were based on the number of acres of disturbance

projected for each alternative for mechanical treatments and for prescribed burning. Emissions

factors for mechanical treatments (heavy equipment, all terrain vehicles, and chain saws) were

obtained from EPA’s NONROADS 2008a Emissions model and emission factors for commuting

vehicles were obtained from EPA’s MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission factor model. Emission

factors for PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, VOCs, CH4, and N2O from smoke were obtained from

Western Governors Association/Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) 2002 Fire Emission

Inventory for the WRAP Region-Phase II (WRAP 2005).

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen Communities Management

Appendix U Technical Support Document for Air

Resources

Emission Calculations by Category February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1661

Emissions were estimated for this category for activities related to forest management

(silviculture, insect control, and forest products harvesting) and were based on the numbers of

acres of surface disturbance projected for each alternative. Emission factors for heavy equipment

and logging equipment used in these activities were obtained from EPA’s NONROADS 2008a

Emissions model and emission factors for commuting vehicles were obtained from EPA’s

MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission factor model.

Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, and Corridor Projects

Emissions were estimated for this category for several surface-disturbing projects under

Land Resources. Table U.4, “Basis for Emissions Calculations for Land Resources

Projects” (p. 1661) shows the key criteria projected under each alternative that were used to as the

basis for emissions calculations. Emission factors for surface-disturbing activities were obtained

from EPA’s AP-42. Emission factors for heavy equipment used in these activities were obtained

from EPA’s NONROADS 2008a Emissions model and emission factors for commuting vehicles

were obtained from EPA’s MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission factor model.

Table U.4. Basis for Emissions Calculations for Land Resources Projects

Type of Project Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Wind energy projects

- acres of disturbance

for life of project (20

years)

2,250 0 108,000 2,250

Wind energy projects

- number of turbines

50 0 2,400 50

Telephone and fiber

optics projects - acres

of disturbance per

year

13.43 2.68 13.83 7.22

Pipelines projects -

acres of disturbance

per year

447 351 460 427

Roads (non-mineral)

projects - acres of

disturbance per year

231.8 46.36 237.93 115.5

Powerline projects -

acres of disturbance

per year

98.46 19.69 101.41 49.23

Communication sites

- acres of disturbance

per year

20.64 9.64 21.46 9.64

Other - acres of

disturbance per year

39 30.61 40 37.32

Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

Emission sources under this category included road maintenance within the planning area

(recreational roads only, mineral development roads were included in those categories), trail

maintenance (including cross-country ski trail grooming), and OHV use within the planning area.

Road and trail maintenance emissions were estimated using historical data on miles maintained per

year and equipment use. Future emissions were based on the number of miles to be maintained for

each alternative. Emission factors for heavy equipment used in these activities were obtained from

EPA’s NONROADS 2008a Emissions model and emission factors for commuting vehicles were

February 2013

Appendix U Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Emission Calculations by Category
1662 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

obtained from EPA’s MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission factor model. OHV emissions were

estimated using EPA’s NONROADS 2008a Emissions model which calculated annual emissions

based on EPA’s National Emissions Inventory and county population for 2005. Emissions were

then projected for 2008, 2018, and 2027. It was assumed that OHV use would not change by

alternative. Emission factors for surface-disturbing activities were obtained from EPA’s AP-42.

Land Resources – Livestock Grazing

Emissions were estimated for six construction activities related to livestock grazing: springs,

wells, fence, reservoir, and pipeline construction and reservoir maintenance. Emission estimates

for these activities were based on the number of acres of disturbance projected for each activity

under each alternative. In addition, CH4 emissions related to animal enteric fermentation and

manure deposits were calculated for estimated head of cattle, sheep, and horses projected for each

alternative based on current livestock grazing permits. Emission factors for heavy equipment

used in these activities were obtained from EPA’s NONROADS 2008a Emissions model and

emission factors for commuting vehicles were obtained from EPA’s MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle

emission factor model. Emission factors for enteric fermentation and manure management were

obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National

Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC 2006).

U.3. Mitigation and BMPs

The following table (Table U.5, “Emission Reduction Strategies for Oil and Gas

Development” (p. 1662)) outlines emission reduction strategies for oil and gas development

in the planning area.

Table U.5. Emission Reduction Strategies for Oil and Gas Development

Mitigation Measure Environmental Benefits Environmental Liabilities Feasibility

Control Strategies for Drilling and Compression

Directional Drilling Reduces construction

related emissions (dust and

vehicle and construction

equipment emissions).

Decreases surface

disturbance and vegetation

impacts (dust and CO2 and

nitrogen flux). Reduces

habitat fragmentation

Could result in higher air

impacts in one area with

longer sustained drilling

times.

Depends on geological

strata

Improved engine

technology (Tier 2 or

better) for diesel drill rig

engines

Reduced NOx, PM, CO, and

VOC emissions

Dependent on availability

of technology from engine

manufacturers

SCR for drill rig engines

and/or compressors

NOx emissions reduction

and decreased formation

of visibility impairing

compounds. NOx control

efficiency of 95% achieved

on drill rig engines. NOx

emission rate of 0.1 g/hp-hr

achieved for compressors

Potential NH3 emissions

and formation of

visibility impairing

ammonium sulfate.

Regeneration/disposal

of catalyst can produce

hazardous waste

Not applicable to 2-stroke

engines

Appendix U Technical Support Document for Air

Resources

Mitigation and BMPs February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1663

Mitigation Measure Environmental Benefits Environmental Liabilities Feasibility

NSCR for drill rig engines

and/or compressors

NOx emissions reduction

and decreased formation

of visibility impairing

compounds. NOx control

efficiency of 80-90%

achieved for drill rig

engines. NOx emission rate

of 0.7 g/hp-hr achieved for

compressor engines greater

than 100 hp.

Regeneration/disposal

of catalysts can produce

hazardous waste

Not applicable to lean burn

or 2-stroke engines

Natural gas fired drill rig

engines

NOx emissions reduction

and decreased formation

of visibility impairing

compounds

Requires onsite processing

of field gas.

Electrification of drill rig

engines and/or compressors

Decreased emissions at the

source. Transfers emissions

to more efficiently

controlled source

Displaces emissions to EGU Depends on availability

of power and transmission

lines

Improved engine

technology (Tier 2 or

better) for all mobile and

non-road diesel engines

Reduced NOx, PM, CO, and

VOC emissions

Dependent on availability

of technology from engine

manufacturers

Green (a.k.a. closed loop or

flareless) completions

Reduction in VOC and

CH4 emissions. Reduces

or eliminate flaring and

venting and associated

emissions. Reduces or

eliminates open pits and

associated evaporative

emissions. Increased

recovery of gas to pipeline

rather than atmosphere.

Temporary increase in

truck traffic and associated

emissions

Need adequate pressure

and flow. Need

onsite infrastructure

(tanks/dehydrator).

Availability of sales line.

Green completion permits

required by Wyoming

BACT in some areas

Green workovers Same as above Same as above Same as above

Minimize or eliminate

venting and/or use closed

loop process where possible

during "blow downs"

Same as above Best Management Practices

required by Wyoming

BACT

Eliminate open pits Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions. Reduces

potential for soil and water

contamination. Reduces

odors.

May increase truck traffic

and associated emissions.

Requires tank and/or

pipeline infrastructure.

Electrification of wellhead

compression/pumping

Reduces local emissions

of fossil fuel combustion

and transfers to more easily

controlled source.

Displaces emissions to EGU Depends on availability

of power and transmission

lines

Wind (or other renewable)

generated power for

compressors

Low or no emissions. May require construction

of infrastructure. Visual

impacts. Potential wildlife

impacts.

Depends on availability

of power and transmission

lines

Control Strategies Utilizing Centralized Systems

Centralization (or

consolidation) of gas

processing facilities

(separation, dehydration,

sweetening, etc.)

Reduced long-term

truck traffic and

associated emissions.

Reduced VOC and GHG

emissions from individual

dehydrator/separator units.

Temporary increase in

construction associated

emissions.

Requires pipeline

infrastructure.

February 2013

Appendix U Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Mitigation and BMPs
1664 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Mitigation Measure Environmental Benefits Environmental Liabilities Feasibility

Liquids Gathering systems

(for condensate and

produced water)

Reduced long-term truck

traffic and associated

emissions. Reduced VOC

and GHG emissions from

tanks.

Temporary increase in

construction associated

emissions.

Requires pipeline

infrastructure.

Water and/or fracturing

liquids delivery system

Reduced long-term truck

traffic and associated

emissions.

Temporary increase in

construction associated

emissions unless place

above ground.

Requires pipeline

infrastructure. Not feasible

for some terrain.

Control Strategies for Tanks, Separators, and Dehydrators

Eliminate use of open top

tanks

Reduced VOC and GHG

emissions

Required by Wyoming

BACT for produced water

tanks in some areas.

Capture and control of

flashing emissions from all

storage tanks and separation

vessels with vapor recovery

and/or thermal combustion

units.

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions.

98% VOC control if ≥ 10

TPY required statewide by

Wyoming BACT

Capture and control of

produced water tank

emissions.

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions.

98% VOC control and no

open top tanks required by

Wyoming DEQ in some

areas

Capture and control of

dehydration equipment

emissions with condensers,

vapor recovery, and/or

thermal combustion

Reduces VOC, HAP, and

GHG emissions

Still vent condensers

required and 98% VOC

control if ≥ 8 TPY required

statewide and in CDA

by Wyoming BACT. All

dehydration emissions

controlled at 98% in JPAD

(no 8 TPY threshold)

Control Strategies for Misc. Fugitive VOC Emissions

Install and maintain low

VOC emitting seals, valves,

hatches on production

equipment

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions.

Initiate an equipment

leak detection and repair

program (including use

of FLIR cameras, grab

samples, organic vapor

detection devices, visual

inspection, etc.)

Reduction in VOC and

GHG emissions

Install or convert gas

operated pneumatic

devices to electric,

solar, or instrument (or

compressed) air driven

devices/controllers

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions.

Electric or compressed

air driven operations

can displace or increase

combustion emissions.

Use "low" or "no bleed"

gas operated pneumatic

devices/controllers

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions.

Or closed loop required

statewide by Wyoming

BACT

Use closed loop system or

thermal combustion for gas

operated pneumatic pumps.

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions.

Required statewide by

Wyoming BACT (98%

VOC control or closed

loop)

Appendix U Technical Support Document for Air

Resources

Mitigation and BMPs February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1665

Mitigation Measure Environmental Benefits Environmental Liabilities Feasibility

Install or convert gas

operated pneumatic

pumps to electric, solar, or

instrument (or compressed)

air driven pumps

Reduces VOC and GHG

emissions.

Electric or compressed

air driven operations

can displace or increase

combustion emissions.

Required statewide by

Wyoming BACT if no

thermal combustion used.

Install vapor recovery on

truck loading/unloading

operations at tanks

Reduces emissions of VOC

and GHG emissions.

Wyoming BACT analysis

required if VOC ≥ 8 TPY or

HAP ≥ 5 TPY.

Control Strategies for Fugitive Dust and Vehicle Emissions

Unpaved surface treatments

including watering,

chemical suppressants,

and gravel.

20% - 80% control of

fugitive dust (particulates)

from vehicle traffic.

Potential impacts to water

and vegetation from runoff

of suppressants.

Use remote telemetry and

automation of wellhead

equipment

Reduces vehicle traffic and

associated emissions.

Speed limit control and

enforcement on unpaved

roads

Reduction of fugitive dust

emissions

Reduce commuter vehicle

trips through car pools,

commuter vans or buses,

innovative work schedules,

or work camps

Reduced combustion

emissions, reduced fugitive

dust emissions, reduced

ozone formation, reduced

impacts to visibility

Miscellaneous Control Strategies

Use of ultra-low sulfur

diesel in engines,

compressors, construction

equipment, etc.

Reduces emissions of

particulates and sulfates

Fuel not readily available in

some areas.

Reduce unnecessary vehicle

idling

Reduced combustion

emissions, reduced ozone

formation, reduced impacts

to visibility, reduced fuel

consumption

Reduced pace of (phased)

development

Peak emissions of all

pollutants reduced

Emissions generated at a

lower rate but for a longer

period

May not be economically

viable.

BACT Best Available Control Technology

CH4 methane

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

EGU electric generating unit

FLIR Forward Looking Infrared Radiometer

g/hp-hr gallons per horsepower hour

GHG greenhouse gas

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

JPAD Joint Precision Airdrop System

Misc. Miscellaneous 

NH3 Ammonia

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

PM particulate matter

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction

TPY tons per year

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

U.4. Summary of Emissions

The following tables summarize the projected total annual emissions for each alternative by

resource for years 2008, 2018, and 2027.

February 2013

Appendix U Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1666 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.6. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells (Base Year – 2008)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction -

Fugitive Dust

17 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissions

a

7 7 134 3 36 10 1 15,524 0 0 15,576 14,090

Well Completion Flaring 0 0 2 0 11 63 6 2 0 0 2 2

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 28 3 1 0 1 0 0 280 0 281 255

Wind Erosion 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 59 13 137 3 49 73 7 15,806 0 0 15,859 14,347

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 11 11 308 1 154 154 46 123,032 257 1 128,778 117,047

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 0 0 172 156

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 241 91 2,623 160 5,981 5,738

Station Visits - Operations 23 2 0 0 1 1 0 81 0 81 73

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 317 0 0 318 287

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection &

Repair - Operations

29 3 0 0 1 0 0 49 0 49 45

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 282 28 20 47 1,005 1,003

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 430 43 254 3,947 83,149 83,125

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 316 32 186 2,899 61,066 61,049

Sub-total: Operations 63 16 311 1 157 1,425 240 126,733 7,311 1 280,599 268,524

Road Maintenance 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 60 54

Sub-total: Maintenance 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 60 54

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 38 34

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1667

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 39 35

Total Emissions 125 29 449 4 206 1,498 247 142,638 7,311 1 296,557 282,961

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1668 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.7. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells (Alternative A – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction -

Fugitive Dust

50 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissions

a

22 22 402 9 109 30 3 46,562 0 0 46,718 42,261

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 6 0 34 189 19 7 0 0 7 6

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 84 9 3 0 3 1 0 839 0 840 762

Wind Erosion 19 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 176 39 411 9 146 220 22 47,407 0 0 47,564 43,030

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 31 31 904 2 452 452 136 361,003 755 3 377,862 343,440

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 505 0 0 506 458

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 709 266 7,696 469 17,549 16,836

Station Visits - Operations 69 7 1 0 4 2 0 237 0 237 215

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 6 0 2 0 0 950 0 0 953 862

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection &

Repair - Operations

84 8 1 0 2 1 0 145 0 145 132

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 826 83 57 138 2,950 2,944

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 1,263 126 744 11,582 243,975 243,907

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 928 93 546 8,506 179,182 179,131

Sub-total: Operations 185 47 913 2 460 4,181 703 371,883 21,451 3 823,358 787,926

Road Maintenance 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 176 0 176 159

Sub-total: Maintenance 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 176 0 0 176 159

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 3

Well Reclamation 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 110 100

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1669

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 114 103

Total Emissions 371 87 1,325 11 607 4,401 725 419,580 21,451 4 871,212 831,219

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1670 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.8. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells (Alternative A – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

50 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

22 22 402 9 109 30 3 46,562 0 0 46,718 42,261

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 6 0 34 189 19 7 0 0 7 6

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 84 9 3 0 3 1 0 839 0 840 762

Wind Erosion 19 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 176 39 411 9 146 220 22 47,407 0 0 47,564 43,030

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 24 24 696 1 348 348 104 277,632 581 2 290,598 264,126

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 388 0 0 389 353

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 545 204 5,918 361 13,496 12,948

Station Visits - Operations 53 5 1 0 3 1 0 183 0 183 166

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 6 0 2 0 0 950 0 0 953 862

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

65 6 1 0 2 1 0 111 0 111 101

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 636 64 44 106 2,269 2,264

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 971 97 572 8,908 187,631 187,578

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 713 71 420 6,542 137,801 137,762

Sub-total: Operations 143 36 704 2 354 3,215 541 286,219 16,497 3 633,431 606,160

Road Maintenance 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 0 135 123

Sub-total: Maintenance 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 0 0 135 123

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3

Well Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 84 76

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1671

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 87 79

Total Emissions 326 76 1,115 11 501 3,435 563 333,848 16,497 3 681,217 649,391

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1672 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.9. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells (Alternative B – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

Tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

42 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

18 17 322 7 87 24 2 37,272 0 0 37,397 33,830

Well Completion Flaring 1 0 5 0 27 151 15 5 0 0 5 5

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 68 7 3 0 3 1 0 676 0 676 614

Wind Erosion 16 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 143 31 329 7 117 176 18 37,953 0 0 38,078 34,448

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 27 27 783 2 392 392 117 312,573 654 3 327,169 297,366

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 437 0 0 438 397

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 613 230 6,663 406 15,194 14,578

Station Visits - Operations 60 6 1 0 3 1 0 206 0 206 187

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 760 0 0 762 690

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

73 7 1 0 2 1 0 126 0 126 114

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 716 72 50 119 2,554 2,549

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 1,094 109 644 10,029 211,245 211,185

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 803 80 473 7,365 155,143 155,100

Sub-total: Operations 160 41 790 2 398 3,620 609 321,931 18,573 3 712,838 682,165

Road Maintenance 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 152 0 152 138

Sub-total: Maintenance 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 152 0 0 152 138

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3

Well Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 95 86

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1673

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

Tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 98 89

Total Emissions 312 73 1,120 9 516 3,796 627 360,134 18,573 3 751,166 716,840

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1674 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.10. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells (Alternative B – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

42 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

18 17 322 7 87 24 2 37,272 0 0 37,397 33,830

Well Completion Flaring 1 0 5 0 27 151 15 5 0 0 5 5

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 68 7 3 0 3 1 0 676 0 676 614

Wind Erosion 16 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 143 31 329 7 117 176 18 37,953 0 0 38,078 34,448

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 21 21 602 1 301 301 90 240,129 502 2 251,343 228,447

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 336 0 0 337 305

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 471 177 5,119 312 11,673 11,199

Station Visits - Operations 46 5 1 0 2 1 0 158 0 158 143

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 760 0 0 762 690

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

56 6 1 0 1 1 0 96 0 96 88

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 550 55 38 92 1,962 1,959

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 840 84 495 7,704 162,286 162,240

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 617 62 363 5,658 119,187 119,153

Sub-total: Operations 123 31 608 1 306 2,781 468 247,494 14,268 2 547,803 524,222

Road Maintenance 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 0 117 106

Sub-total: Maintenance 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 0 0 117 106

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2

Well Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 73 66

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1675

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 75 68

Total Emissions 273 63 938 9 424 2,957 485 285,639 14,269 3 586,074 558,845

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1676 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.11. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells (Alternative C – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

50 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

22 22 402 9 109 30 3 46,562 0 0 46,718 42,261

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 6 0 34 189 19 7 0 0 7 6

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 84 9 3 0 3 1 0 839 0 840 762

Wind Erosion 19 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 176 39 411 9 146 220 22 47,407 0 0 47,564 43,030

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 31 31 906 2 453 453 136 361,813 757 3 378,709 344,210

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 506 0 0 507 459

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 710 266 7,713 470 17,588 16,874

Station Visits - Operations 69 7 1 0 4 2 0 238 0 238 216

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 6 0 2 0 0 950 0 0 953 862

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

84 8 1 0 2 1 0 145 0 145 132

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 828 83 58 138 2,956 2,951

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 1,266 127 746 11,608 244,522 244,453

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 930 93 548 8,526 179,583 179,533

Sub-total: Operations 186 47 915 2 461 4,190 705 372,715 21,499 3 825,202 789,691

Road Maintenance 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 176 0 176 160

Sub-total: Maintenance 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 176 0 0 176 160

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 3

Well Reclamation 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 110 100

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1677

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 114 103

Total Emissions 371 87 1,328 11 608 4,410 727 420,412 21,499 4 873,057 832,984

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1678 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.12. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells (Alternative C – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

50 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

22 22 402 9 109 30 3 46,562 0 0 46,718 42,261

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 6 0 34 189 19 7 0 0 7 6

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 84 9 3 0 3 1 0 839 0 840 762

Wind Erosion 19 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 176 39 411 9 146 220 22 47,407 0 0 47,564 43,030

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 24 24 697 1 348 348 105 278,172 582 3 291,162 264,639

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 389 0 0 390 353

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 546 205 5,930 362 13,522 12,973

Station Visits - Operations 53 5 1 0 3 1 0 183 0 183 166

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 6 0 2 0 0 950 0 0 953 862

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

65 6 1 0 2 1 0 112 0 112 101

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 637 64 44 106 2,273 2,269

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 973 97 573 8,925 187,996 187,943

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 715 71 421 6,555 138,069 138,030

Sub-total: Operations 143 36 705 2 355 3,222 542 286,774 16,529 3 634,660 607,337

Road Maintenance 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 0 135 123

Sub-total: Maintenance 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 0 0 135 123

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3

Well Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 84 76

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1679

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 87 79

Total Emissions 327 76 1,117 11 501 3,442 564 334,403 16,529 3 682,447 650,568

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1680 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.13. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells (Alternative D – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

48 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

21 21 384 9 104 29 3 44,498 0 0 44,647 40,389

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 6 0 32 180 18 6 0 0 6 6

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 81 8 3 0 3 1 0 803 0 804 730

Wind Erosion 19 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 169 37 393 9 140 210 21 45,308 0 0 45,458 41,124

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 30 30 879 2 440 440 132 350,885 734 3 367,271 333,815

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 491 0 0 492 446

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 689 258 7,480 456 17,057 16,364

Station Visits - Operations 67 7 1 0 4 2 0 231 0 231 209

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 6 0 2 0 0 907 0 0 911 824

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

82 8 1 0 2 1 0 141 0 141 128

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 803 80 56 134 2,867 2,862

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 1,228 123 723 11,258 237,138 237,071

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 902 90 531 8,268 174,160 174,110

Sub-total: Operations 180 46 888 2 447 4,064 684 361,445 20,849 3 800,267 765,829

Road Maintenance 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 171 0 171 155

Sub-total: Maintenance 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 171 0 0 171 155

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 3

Well Reclamation 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 0 107 97

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1681

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 0 111 100

Total Emissions 358 84 1,282 11 588 4,274 705 407,034 20,850 4 846,006 807,208

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1682 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.14. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Federal Wells (Alternative D – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

48 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

21 21 384 9 104 29 3 44,498 0 0 44,647 40,389

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 6 0 32 180 18 6 0 0 6 6

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 81 8 3 0 3 1 0 803 0 804 730

Wind Erosion 19 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 169 37 393 9 140 210 21 45,308 0 0 45,458 41,124

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 23 23 676 1 338 338 101 269,808 564 2 282,408 256,682

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 377 0 0 378 343

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 530 199 5,752 351 13,116 12,583

Station Visits - Operations 51 5 1 0 3 1 0 177 0 177 161

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 6 0 2 0 0 907 0 0 911 824

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

63 6 1 0 2 1 0 108 0 108 98

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 618 62 43 103 2,205 2,201

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 944 94 556 8,657 182,343 182,292

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 693 69 408 6,358 133,917 133,880

Sub-total: Operations 139 35 684 2 344 3,125 526 278,137 16,032 2 615,563 589,063

Road Maintenance 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 0 131 119

Sub-total: Maintenance 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 0 0 131 119

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 2

Well Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 82 74

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1683

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 84 76

Total Emissions 315 73 1,077 10 484 3,335 547 323,661 16,032 3 661,237 630,382

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1684 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.15. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Base Year – 2008)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

1 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 116 0 0 117 106

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 6

Sub-total: Construction 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 123 0 0 123 112

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 964 2 0 1,009 915

Dehydrators 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 132 120

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 0 12 244 221

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 6 91 1,907 1,730

Station Visits - Operations 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 8

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total: Operations 2 0 3 0 2 2 0 2,104 104 0 4,296 3,898

Road Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total: Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Well Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total: Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1685

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 4 1 4 0 2 2 0 2,228 104 0 4,420 4,011

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1686 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.16. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative A – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

10 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 5 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

1 1 20 1 7 2 0 2,718 0 0 2,726 2,474

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 10 1 1 0 1 0 0 149 0 149 135

Sub-total: Construction 26 4 21 1 8 2 0 2,866 0 0 2,875 2,609

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 8 8 232 0 116 116 35 92,506 194 1 96,828 87,866

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 1 9 4 924 0 0 926 841

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 3 0 41 1,112 23,401 21,235

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 43 4 556 8,689 183,032 166,091

Station Visits - Operations 11 1 0 0 1 0 0 40 0 40 36

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 203 0 0 204 185

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

12 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 22 20

Sub-total: Operations 32 10 235 1 119 172 44 95,282 9,995 1 305,445 277,174

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 31 28

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 31 28

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 19 17

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 18

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1687

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 60 15 256 1 126 173 44 98,200 9,995 1 308,372 279,829

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1688 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.17. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative A – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

10 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 5 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

1 1 20 1 7 2 0 2,718 0 0 2,726 2,474

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 10 1 1 0 1 0 0 149 0 149 135

Sub-total: Construction 26 4 21 1 8 2 0 2,866 0 0 2,875 2,609

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 7 7 209 0 104 104 31 83,255 174 1 87,145 79,079

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 1 8 4 792 0 0 794 720

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 3 0 37 1,001 21,061 19,112

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 39 4 500 7,820 164,729 149,482

Station Visits - Operations 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 16

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 203 0 0 204 185

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

11 1 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 19 18

Sub-total: Operations 29 9 212 0 107 154 39 85,817 8,996 1 274,963 249,513

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 28 26

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 28 26

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 16

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 18 16

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1689

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 57 14 233 1 114 156 40 88,729 8,996 1 277,884 252,164

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1690 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.18. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative B – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

2 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 1 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissions 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 569 0 0 571 518

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 31 29

Sub-total: Construction 6 1 4 0 2 0 0 601 0 0 603 547

Natural Gas Compression - Operations 2 2 45 0 22 22 7 17,923 37 0 18,760 17,024

Dehydrators 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 264 0 0 265 240

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 1 0 8 216 4,534 4,114

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 8 1 108 1,684 35,463 32,180

Station Visits - Operations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 9

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 42 39

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 4

Sub-total: Operations 7 2 46 0 24 33 9 19,350 1,937 0 60,071 54,511

Road Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 6

Sub-total: Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 6

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Well Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 3

Sub-total: Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 3

Total Emissions 13 3 51 0 25 34 9 19,960 1,937 0 60,683 55,066

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1691

Table U.19. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative B – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

2 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 1 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

0 0 4 0 1 0 0 569 0 0 571 518

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 31 29

Sub-total: Construction 6 1 4 0 2 0 0 601 0 0 603 547

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 1 1 41 0 20 20 6 16,189 34 0 16,945 15,376

Dehydrators 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 264 0 0 265 240

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 1 0 7 195 4,095 3,716

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 8 1 97 1,521 32,031 29,066

Station Visits - Operations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 4

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 42 39

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 3

Sub-total: Operations 7 2 42 0 21 30 8 17,599 1,749 0 54,379 49,346

Road Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5

Sub-total: Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 5

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Well Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3

Sub-total: Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1692 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 13 3 46 0 23 30 8 18,208 1,749 0 54,991 49,901

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1693

Table U.20. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative C – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

10 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 5 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissions 1 1 20 1 7 2 0 2,724 0 0 2,732 2,479

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 10 1 1 0 1 0 0 150 0 150 136

Sub-total: Construction 27 4 21 1 8 2 0 2,874 0 0 2,882 2,615

Natural Gas Compression - Operations 8 8 234 0 117 117 35 93,277 195 1 97,635 88,598

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 1 9 4 924 0 0 926 841

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 3 0 42 1,122 23,596 21,412

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 43 4 561 8,762 184,558 167,475

Station Visits - Operations 12 1 0 0 1 0 0 43 0 43 39

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 203 0 0 204 185

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

13 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 22 20

Sub-total: Operations 33 11 237 1 120 173 44 96,062 10,079 1 307,976 279,470

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 32 29

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 32 29

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 19 18

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 18

Total Emissions 61 15 258 1 127 175 44 98,987 10,079 1 310,910 282,132

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1694 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.21. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative C – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

10 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 5 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

1 1 20 1 7 2 0 2,724 0 0 2,732 2,479

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 10 1 1 0 1 0 0 150 0 150 136

Sub-total: Construction 27 4 21 1 8 2 0 2,874 0 0 2,882 2,615

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 7 7 211 0 105 105 32 84,026 176 1 87,952 79,811

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 1 8 4 792 0 0 794 720

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 3 0 38 1,010 21,256 19,289

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 39 4 505 7,893 166,254 150,866

Station Visits - Operations 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 16

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 203 0 0 204 185

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

11 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Sub-total: Operations 29 9 214 0 107 156 40 86,593 9,079 1 277,491 251,806

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 29 26

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 29 26

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 16

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 18 16

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1695

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 57 14 235 1 115 158 40 89,513 9,079 1 280,419 254,464

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1696 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.22. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative D – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

8 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 4 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissions 1 1 17 0 6 1 0 2,271 0 0 2,278 2,067

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 9 1 0 0 1 0 0 125 0 125 113

Sub-total: Construction 22 3 18 0 6 2 0 2,396 0 0 2,403 2,181

Natural Gas Compression - Operations 7 7 196 0 98 98 29 78,245 164 1 81,900 74,320

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 1 7 4 792 0 0 794 720

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 3 0 35 941 19,794 17,962

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 36 4 470 7,350 154,815 140,485

Station Visits - Operations 11 1 0 0 1 0 0 36 0 36 33

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 169 0 0 170 154

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

11 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 17

Sub-total: Operations 28 9 199 0 100 145 37 80,756 8,454 1 258,520 234,591

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 27 24

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 27 24

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 16 15

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 17 15

Total Emissions 52 12 217 1 107 147 37 83,196 8,454 1 260,966 236,811

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1697

Table U.23. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Federal Wells (Alternative D – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

8 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 4 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

1 1 17 0 6 1 0 2,271 0 0 2,278 2,067

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 9 1 0 0 1 0 0 125 0 125 113

Sub-total: Construction 22 3 18 0 6 2 0 2,396 0 0 2,403 2,181

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 6 6 176 0 88 88 26 70,343 147 1 73,629 66,814

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 0 7 3 660 0 0 662 600

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 2 0 31 846 17,795 16,148

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 33 3 423 6,608 139,181 126,298

Station Visits - Operations 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 15

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 169 0 0 170 154

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

9 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 16 15

Sub-total: Operations 25 8 179 0 90 130 33 72,650 7,601 1 232,462 210,946

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 24 22

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 24 22

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Well Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 13

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 14

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1698 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 49 12 196 1 96 132 33 75,085 7,601 1 234,904 213,162

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1699

Table U.24. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Base Year – 2008)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Exploratory Operations 101 11 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 61 56

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Heavy Equipment - Dust 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 101 11 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 61 56

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1700 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.25. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative A – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Exploratory Operations 101 11 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 61 56

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 374 40 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 65 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 2 0 9 1 0 689 0 690 626

Heavy Equipment - Dust 1 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 1 1 8 0 3 1 0 2,391 0 2,392 2,170

Total 542 59 10 0 12 2 0 3,141 0 0 3,143 2,852

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1701

Table U.26. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative A – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Exploratory Operations 101 11 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 61 56

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 374 40 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 65 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 2 0 9 1 0 689 0 690 626

Heavy Equipment - Dust 1 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 2,392 0 2,392 2,170

Total 542 59 5 0 10 1 0 3,142 0 0 3,143 2,852

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1702 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.27. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative B – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Exploratory Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 125 13 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 22 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 230 0 230 209

Heavy Equipment - Dust 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 797 0 797 723

Total 147 16 3 0 4 1 0 1,027 0 0 1,027 932

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1703

Table U.28. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative B – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Exploratory Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 125 13 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 22 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 230 0 230 209

Heavy Equipment - Dust 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 797 0 797 723

Total 147 16 1 0 3 0 0 1,027 0 0 1,027 932

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1704 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.29. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative C – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Exploratory Operations 101 11 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 61 56

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 374 40 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 65 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 2 0 9 1 0 689 0 690 626

Heavy Equipment - Dust 1 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 1 1 8 0 3 1 0 2,391 0 2,392 2,170

Total 542 59 10 0 12 2 0 3,141 0 0 3,143 2,852

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1705

Table U.30. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative C – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Exploratory Operations 101 11 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 61 56

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 374 40 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 65 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 2 0 9 1 0 689 0 690 626

Heavy Equipment - Dust 1 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 2,392 0 2,392 2,170

Total 542 59 5 0 10 1 0 3,142 0 0 3,143 2,852

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1706 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.31. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative D – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Exploratory Operations 101 11 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 61 56

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 249 27 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 43 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 459 0 460 417

Heavy Equipment - Dust 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 1 1 5 0 2 1 0 1,594 0 1,594 1,447

Total 395 43 7 0 8 1 0 2,115 0 0 2,116 1,920

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1707

Table U.32. Locatable Minerals – Bentonite Mining (Alternative D – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Exploratory Operations 101 11 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 61 56

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 249 27 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 43 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 459 0 460 417

Heavy Equipment - Dust 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1,594 0 1,595 1,447

Total 395 43 3 0 7 1 0 2,115 0 0 2,116 1,920

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1708 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.33. Locatable Minerals – Gold Mining (Base Year – 2008)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 a NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Exploratory Operations 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 37 34

Mine Development 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 37 34

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1709

Table U.34. Locatable Minerals – Gold Mining (All Alternatives – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 a NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Exploratory Operations 5 1 1 0 1 0 0 149 0 0 150 137

Mine Development 220 67 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 88 9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 396 0 396 359

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 1 1 6 0 2 1 0 1,865 0 1,865 1,693

Total 314 77 8 0 5 1 0 2,410 0 0 2,412 2,188

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1710 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.35. Locatable Minerals – Gold Mining (All Alternatives – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 a NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Exploratory Operations 5 1 1 0 1 0 0 149 0 0 150 136

Mine Development 216 66 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 88 9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 396 0 396 359

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 1 1 6 0 2 1 0 1,865 0 1,865 1,693

Total 310 76 8 0 5 1 0 2,410 0 0 2,411 2,188

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1711

Table U.36. Locatable Minerals – Uranium Mining (Base Year – 2008)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

1 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissions 2 2 28 1 11 3 0 634 0 0 637 578

Wind Erosion 1 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 12 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 15 3 28 1 12 3 0 634 0 0 637 578

Transport of Ion Exchange Resin 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Well Workover - Operations 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 114 103

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total: Operations 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 114 104

Road Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total: Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Well Pad Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 4

Sub-total: Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 4

Total Emissions 25 4 30 1 13 3 0 752 0 0 755 685

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1712 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.37. Locatable Minerals – Uranium Mining (All Alternatives – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad Construction - Fugitive Dust 2 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissions 9 9 117 3 45 10 1 2,620 0 0 2,626 2,383

Wind Erosion 2 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 50 5 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 64 14 118 3 51 11 1 2,620 0 0 2,626 2,383

Transport of Ion Exchange Resin 142 14 2 0 1 1 0 2,370 0 2,372 2,152

Well Workover - Operations 43 5 8 0 2 1 0 2,198 0 0 2,205 2,001

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 4

Sub-total: Operations 187 19 10 0 4 1 0 4,573 0 0 4,582 4,158

Road Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5

Sub-total: Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 5

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Well Pad Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 80 72

Sub-total: Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 80 72

Total Emissions 254 34 128 3 55 12 1 7,278 1 0 7,293 6,618

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1713

Table U.38. Locatable Minerals – Uranium Mining (All Alternatives – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

2 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissions 9 9 117 3 45 10 1 2,620 0 0 2,626 2,383

Wind Erosion 2 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 50 5 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 64 14 118 3 51 11 1 2,620 0 0 2,626 2,383

Transport of Ion Exchange Resin 85 9 1 0 1 1 0 2,371 0 2,373 2,153

Well Workover - Operations 25 3 1 0 0 0 0 1,310 0 0 1,315 1,193

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3

Sub-total: Operations 112 11 2 0 1 1 0 3,685 0 0 3,691 3,349

Road Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3

Sub-total: Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Well Pad Reclamation 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 47 43

Sub-total: Reclamation 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 47 43

Total Emissions 177 26 120 3 52 12 1 6,355 0 0 6,367 5,777

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1714 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.39. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Base Year – 2008)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5a NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eqmetric

tonnes

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 2 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 234 23 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 4 0 5 2 0 1,028 0 1,029 934

Heavy Equipment - Dust 10 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 11 10 170 4 76 11 1 17,704 0 17,707 16,068

Wind Erosion 24 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Total 282 39 174 4 81 13 1 18,732 0 18,736 17,002

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1715

Table U.40. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative A – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 3 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 276 28 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 5 0 6 2 0 1,210 0 1,211 1,099

Heavy Equipment - Dust 13 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 7 7 74 4 33 7 1 21,151 0 21,153 19,195

Wind Erosion 31 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Total 330 41 79 4 39 9 1 22,361 0 22,364 20,294

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1716 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.41. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative A – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 3 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 276 28 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 5 0 6 2 0 1,210 0 1,211 1,099

Heavy Equipment - Dust 13 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 6 5 23 3 11 6 1 21,155 0 21,157 19,199

Wind Erosion 15 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Total 313 37 27 3 17 8 1 22,365 0 22,368 20,298

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1717

Table U.42. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative B – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 3 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 265 26 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 5 0 6 2 0 1,162 0 1,163 1,055

Heavy Equipment - Dust 13 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 7 7 72 4 32 7 1 20,304 0 20,307 18,427

Wind Erosion 31 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Total 319 40 76 4 38 9 1 21,466 0 21,469 19,482

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1718 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.43. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative B – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 3 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 265 26 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 5 0 6 2 0 1,162 0 1,163 1,055

Heavy Equipment - Dust 13 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 5 5 22 3 11 6 1 20,309 0 20,311 18,431

Wind Erosion 15 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Total 301 36 26 3 16 8 1 21,471 0 21,473 19,486

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1719

Table U.44. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative C – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eqmetric tonnes

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 4 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 331 33 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 6 0 7 3 0 1,452 0 1,453 1,319

Heavy Equipment - Dust 13 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 9 9 89 5 40 9 1 25,381 0 25,383 23,034

Wind Erosion 31 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Total 387 49 95 5 47 11 1 26,833 0 26,837 24,353

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1720 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.45. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative C – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 3 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 331 33 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 6 0 7 3 0 1,452 0 1,453 1,319

Heavy Equipment - Dust 13 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 7 6 27 4 14 7 1 25,386 0 25,388 23,038

Wind Erosion 15 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Total 370 44 33 4 21 9 1 26,838 0 26,842 24,357

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1721

Table U.46. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative D – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eqmetric tonnes

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 3 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 276 28 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 5 0 6 2 0 1,210 0 1,211 1,099

Heavy Equipment - Dust 13 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 7 7 74 4 33 7 1 21,151 0 21,153 19,195

Wind Erosion 31 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Total 330 41 79 4 39 9 1 22,361 0 22,364 20,294

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1722 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.47. Salable Minerals – Sand & Gravel (Alternative D – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 3 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 276 28 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0 0 5 0 6 2 0 1,210 0 1,211 1,099

Heavy Equipment - Dust 13 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 6 5 23 3 11 6 1 21,155 0 21,157 19,199

Wind Erosion 15 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Total 313 37 27 3 17 8 1 22,365 0 22,368 20,298

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1723

Table U.48. Fire Management and Ecology (Base Year – 2008)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust and Smoke 65 29 8 2 270 14 1 0 14 2 942 855

Heavy Equipment Exhaust 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 23 0 23 21

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Total 71 30 8 2 271 14 1 44 14 2 985 894

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1724 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.49. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative A – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust and Smoke 50 27 8 2 270 14 1 0 14 2 942 855

Heavy Equipment Exhaust 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 0 19 17

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 5 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 16

Total 55 27 8 2 271 14 1 37 14 2 978 888

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1725

Table U.50. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative A – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust and Smoke 50 27 8 2 270 14 1 0 14 2 942 855

Heavy Equipment Exhaust 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 0 19 17

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 5 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 16

Total 55 27 8 2 271 14 1 37 14 2 978 888

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1726 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.51. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative B – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust and Smoke 161 88 25 7 899 46 5 0 48 7 3,139 2,849

Heavy Equipment Exhaust 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 67 0 68 61

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 17 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 62 56

Total 178 90 25 7 902 47 5 129 48 7 3,268 2,966

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1727

Table U.52. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative B – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust and Smoke 161 88 25 7 899 46 5 0 48 7 3,139 2,849

Heavy Equipment Exhaust 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 67 0 68 61

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 17 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 62 56

Total 178 90 25 7 902 47 5 129 48 7 3,268 2,966

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1728 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.53. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative C – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust and Smoke 50 27 8 2 270 14 1 0 14 2 942 855

Heavy Equipment Exhaust 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 32 0 32 29

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 7 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 25 22

Total 58 28 8 2 271 14 1 57 14 2 999 906

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1729

Table U.54. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative C – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust and Smoke 50 27 8 2 270 14 1 0 14 2 942 855

Heavy Equipment Exhaust 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 32 0 32 29

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 7 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 25 22

Total 58 28 8 2 271 14 1 57 14 2 999 906

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1730 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.55. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative D – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust and Smoke 70 43 13 3 450 23 2 0 24 3 1,570 1,424

Heavy Equipment Exhaust 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 0 19 17

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 5 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 16

Total 75 43 13 3 450 23 2 37 24 3 1,606 1,458

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1731

Table U.56. Fire Management and Ecology (Alternative D – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust and Smoke 70 43 13 3 450 23 2 0 24 3 1,570 1,424

Heavy Equipment Exhaust 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 0 19 17

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 5 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 16

Total 75 43 13 3 450 23 2 37 24 3 1,606 1,458

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1732 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.57. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Base Year – 2008)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4

CO2eq

tons

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 32 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 32 3 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Total 38 4 0 0 5 1 0 47 0 47 42

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1733

Table U.58. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative A – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4

CO2eq

tons

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 131 13 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 131 13 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Total 138 14 0 0 5 1 0 47 0 47 42

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1734 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.59. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative A – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4

CO2eq

tons

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 131 13 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 131 13 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Total 138 14 0 0 5 1 0 47 0 47 42

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1735

Table U.60. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative B – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4

CO2eq

tons

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 193 19 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 193 19 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Total 199 20 0 0 5 1 0 47 0 47 42

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1736 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.61. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative B – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4

CO2eq

tons

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 193 19 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 193 19 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Total 199 20 0 0 5 1 0 47 0 47 42

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1737

Table U.62. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative C – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4

CO2eq

tons

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 263 26 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 263 26 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Total 269 27 0 0 5 1 0 47 0 47 42

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1738 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.63. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative C – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4

CO2eq

tons

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 263 26 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 263 26 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Total 269 27 0 0 5 1 0 47 0 47 42

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1739

Table U.64. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative D – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4

CO2eq

tons

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 210 21 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 210 21 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Total 217 22 0 0 5 1 0 47 0 47 42

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1740 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.65. Vegetation – Forest and Woodlands (Alternative D – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4

CO2eq

tons

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 210 21 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 210 21 0 0 5 1 0 26 0 27 24

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Total 217 22 0 0 5 1 0 47 0 47 42

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1741

Table U.66. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Base Year – 2008)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust 10 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 189 0 189 171

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 10 1 2 0 1 0 0 189 0 189 171

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 3 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 12

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 12

Total 13 1 2 0 1 0 0 202 0 202 183

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1742 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.67. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative A – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 37 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 504 0 504 457

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 37 4 2 0 1 0 0 504 0 504 457

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 8 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 39 36

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 39 36

Total 45 5 2 0 1 0 0 543 0 543 493

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1743

Table U.68. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative A – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust 37 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 514 0 514 466

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 37 4 1 0 0 0 0 514 0 514 466

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 8 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 39 36

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 39 36

Total 45 5 1 0 1 0 0 553 0 553 502

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1744 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.69. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative B – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 16 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 218 0 218 198

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 16 2 1 0 0 0 0 218 0 218 198

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 3 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 12

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 12

Total 19 2 1 0 1 0 0 231 0 231 210

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1745

Table U.70. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative B – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust 16 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220 0 220 200

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 220 0 220 200

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 3 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 12

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 12

Total 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 233 0 233 212

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1746 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.71. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative C – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 408 41 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 2 2 25 1 11 2 0 6195 0 6196 5623

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 411 43 25 1 11 2 0 6195 0 6196 5623

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 129 13 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 779 0 779 707

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 129 13 1 0 3 1 0 779 0 779 707

Total 539 56 26 1 14 4 0 6974 0 6976 6330

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1747

Table U.72. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative C – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust 408 41 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 2 2 7 1 3 2 0 6203 0 6204 5629

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 410 42 7 1 3 2 0 6203 0 6204 5629

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 129 13 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 779 0 779 707

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 129 13 1 0 3 1 0 779 0 779 707

Total 539 55 9 1 6 3 0 6982 0 6983 6337

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1748 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.73. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative D – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 30 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 418 0 418 379

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 31 3 2 0 1 0 0 418 0 418 379

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 7 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 34 31

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 34 31

Total 37 4 2 0 1 0 0 452 0 452 410

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1749

Table U.74. Land Resources – Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way, Corridors (Alternative D – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Fugitive Dust 30 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 423 0 423 384

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 423 0 423 384

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 7 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 34 31

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 34 31

Total 37 4 1 0 0 0 0 456 0 456 414

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1750 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.75. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Base Year – 2008)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Road Maintenance 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 101 0 101 92

Motorized Recreation 7 6 5 1 472 191 19 2,607 3 2,668 2,421

Total 9 6 6 1 472 191 19 2,708 3 2,769 2,513

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1751

Table U.76. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative A – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Road Maintenance 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 103 93

Motorized Recreation 4 4 7 1 526 119 12 3,558 2 3,608 3,274

Total 7 4 7 1 526 119 12 3,661 2 3,710 3,367

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1752 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.77. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative A – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Road Maintenance 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 103 93

Motorized Recreation 3 3 8 1 522 88 9 3,796 4 3,876 3,517

Total 6 3 8 1 522 88 9 3,898 4 3,978 3,610

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1753

Table U.78. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative B – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Road Maintenance 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 90 82

Motorized Recreation 4 4 7 1 526 119 12 3,558 2 3,608 3,274

Total 6 4 7 1 526 119 12 3,649 2 3,698 3,356

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1754 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.79. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative B – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Road Maintenance 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 90 82

Motorized Recreation 3 3 8 1 522 88 9 3,796 4 3,876 3,517

Total 5 3 8 1 522 88 9 3,886 4 3,966 3,599

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1755

Table U.80. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative C – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Road Maintenance 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 0 127 115

Motorized Recreation 4 4 7 1 526 119 12 3,558 2 3,608 3,274

Total 7 4 7 1 526 119 12 3,685 2 3,735 3,389

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1756 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.81. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative C – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Road Maintenance 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 0 127 115

Motorized Recreation 3 3 8 1 522 88 9 3,796 4 3,876 3,517

Total 6 3 8 1 522 88 9 3,923 4 4,003 3,632

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1757

Table U.82. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative D – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Road Maintenance 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 103 93

Motorized Recreation 4 4 7 1 526 119 12 3,558 2 3,608 3,274

Total 7 4 7 1 526 119 12 3,661 2 3,710 3,367

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1758 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.83. Land Resources – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management (Alternative D – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Road Maintenance 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 103 93

Motorized Recreation 3 3 8 1 522 88 9 3,796 4 3,876 3,517

Total 6 3 8 1 522 88 9 3,898 4 3,978 3,610

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1759

Table U.84. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Base Year – 2008)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 3 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 60 0 60 54

Sub-total: Construction 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 60 0 60 54

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 77 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 4 0 86 4 0 1,756 0 1,761 1,598

Enteric Fermentation and Manure --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,187 24,919 22,613

Sub-total: Operations and Maintenance 77 8 4 0 86 4 0 1,756 1,187 26,680 24,211

Total 80 8 5 0 86 4 0 1,816 1,187 26,740 24,265

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1760 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.85. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative A – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 3 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 62 56

Sub-total: Construction 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 62 56

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 77 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 4 0 86 4 0 1,756 0 1,761 1,598

Enteric Fermentation and Manure --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,187 24,919 22,613

Sub-total: Operations and Maintenance 77 8 4 0 86 4 0 1,756 1,187 26,680 24,211

Total 80 8 4 0 86 4 0 1,818 1,187 26,742 24,267

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1761

Table U.86. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative A – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 3 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 62 56

Sub-total: Construction 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 62 56

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 77 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 4 0 86 4 0 1,756 0 1,761 1,598

Enteric Fermentation and Manure --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,187 24,919 22,613

Sub-total: Operations and Maintenance 77 8 4 0 86 4 0 1,756 1,187 26,680 24,211

Total 80 8 4 0 86 4 0 1,818 1,187 26,742 24,267

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1762 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.87. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative B – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total: Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Enteric Fermentation and Manure --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 0

Sub-total: Operations and Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1763

Table U.88. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative B – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total: Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Enteric Fermentation and Manure --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 0

Sub-total: Operations and Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1764 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.89. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative C – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 0 144 131

Sub-total: Construction 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 144 0 144 131

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 78 8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 4 0 87 4 0 1,808 0 1,813 1,645

Enteric Fermentation and Manure --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,614 33,894 30,757

Sub-total: Operations and Maintenance 78 8 4 0 87 4 0 1,808 1,614 35,707 32,402

Total 84 8 5 0 87 4 0 1,952 1,614 35,852 32,533

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1765

Table U.90. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative C – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 0 144 131

Sub-total: Construction 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 144 0 144 131

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 78 8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 4 0 87 4 0 1,808 0 1,813 1,645

Enteric Fermentation and Manure --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,614 33,894 30,757

Sub-total: Operations and Maintenance 78 8 4 0 87 4 0 1,808 1,614 35,707 32,402

Total 84 8 5 0 87 4 0 1,952 1,614 35,852 32,533

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1766 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.91. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative D – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 0 144 131

Sub-total: Construction 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 144 0 144 131

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 78 8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 4 0 87 4 0 1,808 0 1,813 1,645

Enteric Fermentation and Manure --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,614 33,894 30,757

Sub-total: Operations and Maintenance 78 8 4 0 87 4 0 1,808 1,614 35,707 32,402

Total 84 8 5 0 87 4 0 1,952 1,614 35,852 32,533

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1767

Table U.92. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing (Alternative D – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 0 144 131

Sub-total: Construction 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 144 0 144 131

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 78 8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0 0 4 0 87 4 0 1,808 0 1,813 1,645

Enteric Fermentation and Manure --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,614 33,894 30,757

Sub-total: Operations and Maintenance 78 8 4 0 87 4 0 1,808 1,614 35,707 32,402

Total 84 8 5 0 87 4 0 1,952 1,614 35,852 32,533

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1768 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.93. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total (BLM and Non-BLM) Wells (Base Year – 2008)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

32 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

8 7 136 3 37 10 1 15,705 0 0 15,757 14,254

Well Completion Flaring 0 0 2 0 11 63 6 2 0 0 2 2

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 30 3 1 0 1 0 0 315 0 315 286

Wind Erosion 6 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 77 15 139 3 50 73 7 16,022 0 0 16,074 14,542

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 26 26 766 2 383 383 115 305,692 639 3 319,968 290,821

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 428 0 0 428 388

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 600 225 6,516 397 14,860 14,257

Station Visits - Operations 58 6 1 0 3 1 0 201 0 201 182

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 317 0 0 318 287

Well & Pipeline visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

71 7 1 0 2 1 0 123 0 123 111

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 700 70 49 117 2,498 2,493

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 1,070 107 630 9,808 206,595 206,537

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 785 79 463 7,203 151,728 151,686

Sub-total: Operations 156 40 770 2 389 3,540 596 314,418 18,164 3 696,719 666,762

Road Maintenance 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 149 0 149 135

Sub-total: Maintenance 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 149 0 0 149 135

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3

Well Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 93 85

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1769

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 96 87

Total Emissions 240 55 910 5 439 3,614 603 330,685 18,164 3 713,038 681,527

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1770 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.94. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells (Alternative A – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

80 8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

32 31 564 13 153 42 4 65,312 1 1 65,531 59,281

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 9 0 47 264 26 9 0 0 9 8

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 119 12 4 0 5 2 0 1,199 0 1,200 1,089

Wind Erosion 27 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 259 56 577 13 205 308 31 66,521 1 1 66,740 60,378

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 55 55 1,604 3 802 802 241 640,389 1,339 6 670,295 609,234

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 896 0 0 898 813

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 1,257 471 13,651 832 31,130 29,866

Station Visits - Operations 122 12 2 0 6 3 0 421 0 421 382

Well Workover - Operations 2 1 9 0 3 1 0 1,330 0 0 1,334 1,207

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

149 15 1 0 4 2 0 257 0 257 233

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 1,466 147 102 244 5,233 5,223

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 2,241 224 1,320 20,546 432,792 432,670

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 1,646 165 969 15,090 317,853 317,763

Sub-total: Operations 328 83 1,618 4 816 7,416 1,248 659,335 38,052 6

1,460,2

12

1,397,3

93

Road Maintenance 9 1 1 0 1 0 0 312 0 312 283

Sub-total: Maintenance 9 1 1 0 1 0 0 312 0 0 312 283

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 6

Well Reclamation 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 195 0 195 177

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1771

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 202 0 0 202 183

Total Emissions 604 141 2,196 17 1,022 7,725 1,279 726,368 38,052 6

1,527,4

66

1,458,2

36

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1772 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.95. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells (Alternative A – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

80 8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

32 31 564 13 153 42 4 65,312 1 1 65,531 59,281

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 9 0 47 264 26 9 0 0 9 8

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 119 12 4 0 5 2 0 1,199 0 1,200 1,089

Wind Erosion 27 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 259 56 577 13 205 308 31 66,521 1 1 66,740 60,378

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 43 43 1,251 3 626 626 188 499,550 1,045 4 522,878 475,246

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 699 0 0 700 634

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 980 368 10,649 649 24,284 23,298

Station Visits - Operations 95 10 2 0 5 2 0 329 0 329 298

Well Workover - Operations 2 0 9 0 3 1 0 1,330 0 0 1,334 1,207

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

116 12 1 0 3 1 0 201 0 201 182

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 1,144 114 79 191 4,082 4,074

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 1,748 175 1,029 16,028 337,609 337,513

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 1,284 128 756 11,771 247,948 247,878

Sub-total: Operations 257 65 1,264 3 637 5,785 973 514,621 29,683 5

1,139,3

64

1,090,3

32

Road Maintenance 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 243 0 243 221

Sub-total: Maintenance 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 243 0 0 243 221

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5

Well Reclamation 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 151 0 151 137

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1773

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 0 156 142

Total Emissions 528 122 1,841 16 843 6,094 1,004 581,540 29,684 5

1,206,5

03

1,151,0

72

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1774 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.96. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells (Alternative B – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

73 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

27 26 483 11 132 36 4 56,027 1 1 56,215 50,853

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 7 0 40 227 23 8 0 0 8 7

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 103 11 4 0 4 1 0 1,036 0 1,037 941

Wind erosion 23 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 227 48 495 11 176 264 26 57,072 1 1 57,260 51,802

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 51 51 1,483 3 741 741 222 591,959 1,238 5 619,603 563,160

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 828 0 0 830 752

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 1,162 436 12,619 769 28,776 27,608

Station Visits - Operations 113 11 2 0 6 3 0 389 0 389 353

Well Workover - Operations 2 1 8 0 2 1 0 1,140 0 0 1,144 1,034

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

138 14 1 0 4 2 0 238 0 238 216

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 1,355 136 94 226 4,837 4,828

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 2,071 207 1,220 18,992 400,061 399,948

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 1,521 152 896 13,949 293,815 293,732

Sub-total: Operations 303 77 1,495 3 754 6,855 1,153 609,382 35,174 5

1,349,6

92

1,291,6

31

Road Maintenance 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 288 0 288 261

Sub-total: Maintenance 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 288 0 0 288 261

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 5

Well Reclamation 6 1 1 0 1 0 0 180 0 181 164

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1775

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 186 0 0 187 169

Total Emissions 545 127 1,991 14 931 7,120 1,180 666,928 35,175 6

1,407,4

26

1,343,8

64

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1776 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.97. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells (Alternative B – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

73 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

27 26 483 11 132 36 4 56,027 1 1 56,215 50,853

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 7 0 40 227 23 8 0 0 8 7

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 103 11 4 0 4 1 0 1,036 0 1,037 941

Wind Erosion 23 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 227 48 495 11 176 264 26 57,072 1 1 57,260 51,802

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 40 40 1,158 2 579 579 174 462,181 966 4 483,765 439,696

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 646 0 0 648 587

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 907 340 9,852 601 22,467 21,555

Station Visits - Operations 88 9 2 0 5 2 0 304 0 304 276

Well Workover - Operations 2 0 8 0 2 1 0 1,140 0 0 1,144 1,034

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

107 11 1 0 3 1 0 186 0 186 168

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 1,058 106 73 176 3,776 3,770

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 1,617 162 952 14,829 312,354 312,266

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 1,188 119 699 10,891 229,401 229,336

Sub-total: Operations 237 60 1,169 3 589 5,353 900 476,034 27,463 4

1,054,0

44

1,008,6

88

Road Maintenance 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 225 0 225 204

Sub-total: Maintenance 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 225 0 0 225 204

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 4

Well Reclamation 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 140 127

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1777

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 144 0 0 144 131

Total Emissions 475 109 1,664 14 766 5,617 927 533,475 27,463 5

1,111,6

73

1,060,8

25

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1778 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.98. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells (Alternative C – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

80 8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

32 31 564 13 153 42 4 65,312 1 1 65,531 59,281

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 9 0 47 264 26 9 0 0 9 8

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 119 12 4 0 5 2 0 1,199 0 1,200 1,089

Wind Erosion 27 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 259 56 577 13 205 308 31 66,521 1 1 66,740 60,378

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 55 55 1,606 3 803 803 241 641,199 1,341 6 671,142 610,004

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 897 0 0 899 814

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 1,258 472 13,669 833 31,169 29,904

Station Visits - Operations 122 12 2 0 6 3 0 422 0 422 383

Well Workover - Operations 2 1 9 0 3 1 0 1,330 0 0 1,334 1,207

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

149 15 1 0 4 2 0 257 0 257 234

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 1,468 147 102 245 5,239 5,230

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 2,243 224 1,321 20,572 433,339 433,217

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 1,648 165 970 15,109 318,255 318,165

Sub-total: Operations 329 83 1,620 4 817 7,426 1,249 660,166 38,100 6

1,462,0

56

1,399,1

57

Road Maintenance 9 1 1 0 1 0 0 312 0 312 283

Sub-total: Maintenance 9 1 1 0 1 0 0 312 0 0 312 283

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 6

Well Reclamation 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 195 0 196 177

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1779

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 202 0 0 202 183

Total Emissions 604 141 2,199 17 1,023 7,734 1,280 727,201 38,100 6

1,529,3

11

1,460,0

02

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1780 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.99. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells (Alternative C – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

80 8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

32 31 564 13 153 42 4 65,312 1 1 65,531 59,281

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 9 0 47 264 26 9 0 0 9 8

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 119 12 4 0 5 2 0 1,199 0 1,200 1,089

Wind Erosion 27 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 259 56 577 13 205 308 31 66,521 1 1 66,740 60,378

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 43 43 1,254 3 627 627 188 500,359 1,046 5 523,725 476,017

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 700 0 0 701 635

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 982 368 10,666 650 24,323 23,336

Station Visits - Operations 95 10 2 0 5 2 0 329 0 329 299

Well Workover - Operations 2 0 9 0 3 1 0 1,330 0 0 1,334 1,207

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

116 12 1 0 3 1 0 201 0 201 182

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 1,145 115 80 191 4,088 4,081

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 1,751 175 1,031 16,054 338,156 338,060

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 1,286 129 757 11,790 248,350 248,280

Sub-total: Operations 257 65 1,266 3 638 5,795 975 515,452 29,731 5

1,141,2

08

1,092,0

96

Road Maintenance 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 243 0 243 221

Sub-total: Maintenance 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 243 0 0 243 221

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5

Well Reclamation 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 151 0 151 137

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1781

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 0 156 142

Total Emissions 529 122 1,843 16 844 6,103 1,006 582,373 29,732 5

1,208,3

48

1,152,8

37

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1782 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.100. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells (Alternative D – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

79 8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

31 30 546 12 148 41 4 63,249 1 1 63,461 57,408

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 8 0 46 256 26 9 0 0 9 8

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 115 12 4 0 5 2 0 1,163 0 1,164 1,056

Wind Erosion 26 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 252 54 559 12 199 298 30 64,421 1 1 64,634 58,472

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 54 54 1,579 3 789 789 237 630,271 1,318 6 659,705 599,609

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 882 0 0 883 800

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 1,237 464 13,436 819 30,638 29,394

Station Visits - Operations 120 12 2 0 6 3 0 414 0 415 376

Well Workover - Operations 2 1 9 0 3 1 0 1,287 0 0 1,292 1,168

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

146 15 1 0 4 2 0 253 0 253 230

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 1,443 144 100 240 5,150 5,141

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 2,205 221 1,299 20,222 425,954 425,834

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 1,620 162 954 14,851 312,831 312,743

Sub-total: Operations 323 82 1,592 4 803 7,299 1,228 648,896 37,450 6

1,437,1

21

1,375,2

95

Road Maintenance 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 307 0 307 278

Sub-total: Maintenance 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 307 0 0 307 278

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 6

Well Reclamation 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 192 0 192 174

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1783

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 199 0 0 199 180

Total Emissions 591 138 2,153 16 1,003 7,598 1,258 713,822 37,451 6

1,502,2

60

1,434,2

26

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1784 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.101. Leasable Minerals – Conventional Oil and Gas Development – Total Wells (Alternative D – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

79 8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

31 30 546 12 148 41 4 63,249 1 1 63,461 57,408

Well Completion Flaring 1 1 8 0 46 256 26 9 0 0 9 8

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 115 12 4 0 5 2 0 1,163 0 1,164 1,056

Wind Erosion 26 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Sub-total: Construction 252 54 559 12 199 298 30 64,421 1 1 64,634 58,472

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 42 42 1,232 3 616 616 185 491,860 1,028 4 514,829 467,931

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank

Heaters - Operations a

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 688 0 0 689 625

Dehy Venting and Flashing --- --- --- --- --- 965 362 10,485 639 23,910 22,939

Station Visits - Operations 94 9 2 0 5 2 0 323 0 323 294

Well Workover - Operations 2 0 9 0 3 1 0 1,287 0 0 1,292 1,168

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

114 11 1 0 3 1 0 197 0 198 179

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 1,126 113 78 188 4,019 4,012

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 1,721 172 1,014 15,781 332,412 332,318

Pneumatic Devices --- --- --- --- --- 1,264 126 744 11,590 244,131 244,063

Sub-total: Operations 253 64 1,244 3 627 5,696 958 506,677 29,226 4

1,121,8

04

1,073,5

29

Road Maintenance 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 239 0 239 217

Sub-total: Maintenance 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 239 0 0 239 217

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5

Well Reclamation 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 149 0 149 135

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1785

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Sub-total: Reclamation 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 154 0 0 154 139

Total Emissions 517 119 1,803 15 826 5,995 988 571,491 29,227 5

1,186,8

30

1,132,3

57

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1786 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.102. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total (BLM and Non-BLM) Wells (Base Year – 2008)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

1 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 129 0 0 129 117

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 8

Sub-total: Construction 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 137 0 0 125

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 0 0 14 0 7 7 2 5,396 11 0 5,648 5,125

Dehydrators 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 132 0 0 132 120

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 2 65 1,365 1,239

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 3 0 32 507 10,677 9,689

Station Visits - Operations 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 9

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 8

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Sub-total: Operations 7 1 15 0 8 10 3 6,573 583 0 18,835 17,091

Road Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2

Sub-total: Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Well Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Sub-total: Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1787

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 9 1 16 0 8 10 3 6,713 583 0 18,838 17,219

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1788 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.103. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative A – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

17 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 8 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions

2 2 35 1 12 3 0 4,646 0 0 4,660 4,229

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 18 2 1 0 1 0 0 255 0 255 231

Sub-total: Construction 45 7 36 1 13 3 0 4,900 0 0 4,915 4,460

Natural Gas Compression - Operations 14 14 397 1 199 199 60 158,609 332 1 166,019 150,653

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 1 15 8 1,453 0 0 1,456 1,321

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 5 1 71 1,907 40,124 36,410

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 74 7 953 14,899 313,824 284,777

Station Visits - Operations 20 2 0 0 1 0 0 69 0 69 63

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 347 0 0 348 316

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

21 2 0 0 1 0 0 37 0 37 34

Sub-total: Operations 56 18 402 1 203 294 75 162,530 17,138 1 522,870 474,473

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 54 49

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 54 49

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 33 30

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 34 31

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1789

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 103 25 438 2 216 297 75 167,518 17,138 1 527,873 479,013

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1790 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.104. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative A – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

17 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 8 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

2 2 35 1 12 3 0 4,646 0 0 4,660 4,229

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 18 2 1 0 1 0 0 255 0 255 231

Sub-total: Construction 45 7 36 1 13 3 0 4,900 0 0 4,915 4,460

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 12 12 358 1 179 179 54 142,806 299 1 149,478 135,642

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 1 14 7 1,321 0 0 1,323 1,201

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 5 0 64 1,717 36,126 32,782

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 67 7 858 13,414 282,556 256,403

Station Visits - Operations 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 31 28

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 347 0 0 348 316

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

19 2 0 0 1 0 0 33 0 33 30

Sub-total: Operations 50 16 362 1 182 265 68 146,451 15,430 1 470,889 427,304

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 48 44

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 48 44

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30 27

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 31 28

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1791

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 97 23 398 2 195 268 68 151,431 15,430 1 475,883 431,836

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1792 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.105. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative B – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

9 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 4 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions

1 1 19 0 6 1 0 2,491 0 0 2,499 2,268

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 10 1 1 0 1 0 0 136 0 137 124

Sub-total: Construction 24 4 19 0 7 2 0 2,628 0 0 2,635 2,392

Natural Gas Compression - Operations 7 7 211 0 105 105 32 84,026 176 1 87,952 79,811

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 1 8 4 792 0 0 794 720

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 3 0 38 1,010 21,256 19,289

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 39 4 505 7,893 166,254 150,866

Station Visits - Operations 11 1 0 0 1 0 0 36 0 36 33

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 186 0 0 187 169

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

11 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 18

Sub-total: Operations 29 9 214 0 108 156 40 86,594 9,079 1 277,492 251,807

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 29 26

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 29 26

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 16

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 18 16

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1793

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 55 13 233 1 115 158 40 89,268 9,079 1 280,174 254,241

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1794 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.106. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative B – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

9 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 4 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

1 1 19 0 6 1 0 2,491 0 0 2,499 2,268

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 10 1 1 0 1 0 0 136 0 137 124

Sub-total: Construction 24 4 19 0 7 2 0 2,628 0 0 2,635 2,392

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 6 6 189 0 95 95 28 75,547 158 1 79,076 71,757

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 1 7 4 792 0 0 794 720

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 3 0 34 908 19,111 17,342

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 35 4 454 7,096 149,477 135,641

Station Visits - Operations 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 15

Well Workover - Operations 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 186 0 0 187 169

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

10 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 16

Sub-total: Operations 27 9 192 0 97 140 36 78,038 8,163 1 249,671 226,562

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 26 23

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 26 23

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 16 14

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 16 15

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1795

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 52 12 211 1 104 142 36 80,707 8,163 1 252,348 228,991

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1796 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.107. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative C – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

13 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 8 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions

2 2 34 1 12 3 0 4,596 0 0 4,610 4,183

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 17 2 1 0 1 0 0 247 0 247 225

Sub-total: Construction 41 7 35 1 13 3 0 4,843 0 0 4,858 4,408

Natural Gas Compression - Operations 8 8 234 0 117 117 35 93,277 195 1 97,635 88,598

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 1 9 4 924 0 0 926 841

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 3 0 42 1,122 23,596 21,412

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 43 4 561 8,762 184,558 167,475

Station Visits - Operations 12 1 0 0 1 0 0 43 0 43 39

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 347 0 0 348 316

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

13 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 22 20

Sub-total: Operations 34 11 238 1 120 173 44 96,206 10,079 1 308,120 279,601

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 32 29

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 32 29

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 19 18

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 18

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1797

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 76 17 274 1 133 176 45 101,100 10,079 1 313,030 284,056

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1798 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.108. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative C – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

13 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 8 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

2 2 34 1 12 3 0 4,596 0 0 4,610 4,183

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 17 2 1 0 1 0 0 247 0 247 225

Sub-total: Construction 41 7 35 1 13 3 0 4,843 0 0 4,858 4,408

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 12 12 359 1 180 180 54 143,384 300 1 150,083 136,192

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 1 14 7 1,321 0 0 1,323 1,201

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 5 0 64 1,724 36,272 32,915

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 67 7 862 13,469 283,700 257,441

Station Visits - Operations 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 31 28

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 347 0 0 348 316

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

19 2 0 0 1 0 0 33 0 33 30

Sub-total: Operations 50 16 364 1 183 266 68 147,033 15,493 1 472,784 429,024

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 49 44

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 49 44

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30 27

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 31 28

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1799

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 94 23 399 2 196 269 68 151,955 15,493 1 477,721 433,504

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1800 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.109. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative D – 2018)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

12 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 7 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions

2 2 32 1 11 2 0 4,253 0 0 4,266 3,871

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 16 2 1 0 1 0 0 228 0 228 207

Sub-total: Construction 37 6 33 1 12 3 0 4,481 0 0 4,495 4,079

Natural Gas Compression - Operations 7 7 196 0 98 98 29 78,245 164 1 81,900 74,320

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 1 7 4 792 0 0 794 720

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 3 0 35 941 19,794 17,962

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 36 4 470 7,350 154,815 140,485

Station Visits - Operations 11 1 0 0 1 0 0 36 0 36 33

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 321 0 0 323 293

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

11 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 17

Sub-total: Operations 28 9 200 0 101 145 37 80,909 8,454 1 258,672 234,730

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 27 24

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 27 24

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 16 15

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 17 15

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1801

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 67 15 233 1 113 148 37 85,433 8,454 1 263,210 238,848

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
1802 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table U.110. Leasable Minerals – CBNG Development – Total Wells (Alternative D – 2027)

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Well Pad & Station Construction

- Fugitive Dust

12 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Wind Erosion 7 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive

Emissions a

2 2 32 1 11 2 0 4,253 0 0 4,266 3,871

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 16 2 1 0 1 0 0 228 0 228 207

Sub-total: Construction 37 6 33 1 12 3 0 4,481 0 0 4,495 4,079

Natural Gas Compression - Operations a 11 11 325 1 163 163 49 129,894 272 1 135,962 123,378

Dehydrators 0 0 1 0 1 12 6 1,189 0 0 1,191 1,081

Central Processing Heaters 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 990 0 0 992 901

Wellhead Fugitives --- --- --- --- --- 5 0 58 1,562 32,859 29,818

Pneumatics --- --- --- --- --- 61 6 781 12,201 257,008 233,220

Station Visits - Operations 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 28 25

Well Workover - Operations 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 321 0 0 323 293

Well & Pipeline Visits for Inspection

& Repair - Operations

18 2 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30 28

Sub-total: Operations 46 15 330 1 166 241 62 133,292 14,035 1 428,394 388,743

Road Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 44 40

Sub-total: Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 44 40

Road Reclamation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Well Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 27 24

Sub-total: Reclamation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 28 25

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document for Air

ResourcesSummary of Emissions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1803

Annual Emissions (Tons)

Activity PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq

CO2eq

metric

tonnes

Total Emissions 85 21 363 2 178 244 62 137,845 14,035 1 432,961 392,887

a HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1, and formaldehyde HAP added for gas compression

February 2013

Appendix

U

Technical Support Document

for Air Resources

Summary of Emissions
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1805

Appendix V. Wild Horse Management in the

Lander Planning Area

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) monitors wild horse populations to comply with

population management objectives set in the land use plan. The BLM has been conducting

ongoing monitoring of wild horses and their habitat in Herd Management Areas (HMA) for

many years.

The monitoring program, although not exclusive to the wild horse program, includes collection

and monitoring of the following types of information carried out by BLM range, wildlife, and

wild horse staff in the planning area:

● Precipitation data

● Rangeland trends (uplands and riparian)

● Forage utilization data

● Permitted use by livestock

● Wildlife actual use and forage requirements

● Wild horse population data, including but not limited to –

○ Population counts

○ Reproductive rates

○ Age/sex structure

○ Observation sightings

○ Determining areas of highest horse use, or concentration areas

If an evaluation of monitoring data were to indicate that wild horse management objectives in the

land use plan were not being met, population adjustments in land use plans and Herd Management

Area Plans (HMAPs) could be necessary. Population adjustments would be analyzed prior to

initiating management actions in applicable HMAPs and Resource Management Plans (RMPs).

Monitoring and adjusting the appropriate management level, as necessary, would ensure a

thriving, natural ecological balance is maintained.

More information on specific management direction used in managing wild horse populations

in the planning area can be found in the Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook

(H–4700-1). This handbook is an assemblage of all relevant policy and technical guidance that

must be considered in developing and implementing Wild Horse Management Plans (WHMPs)

and actions.

Establishment and Modification of Herd Management Areas and Appropriate Management

Levels

The current appropriate management levels were established in 1993 and 1994 from a process

that included five years of focused, intensive monitoring of wild horse herd areas, use areas, and

grazing allotments. Evaluation of data, public input, and environmental analysis were utilized to

establish the appropriate management level for each herd. Appropriate management levels were

established for the Lander Field Office by two National Environmental Policy Act analyses. In

1993, Environmental Assessment (EA) # WY-036-EA3-010 identified five HMAs: Conant Creek,

Muskrat Basin, Rock Creek Mountain, Dishpan Butte, and Green Mountain. An EA developed

by the Rawlins Field Office, EA# WY-037-EA4-122, identified two HMAs and appropriate

management levels for Crooks Mountain and Antelope Hills.

February 2013

Appendix V Wild Horse Management in the

Lander Planning Area
1806 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Appropriate Management Level/Population Expression in the Planning Area

The existing Lander Field Office appropriate management levels are expressed as the number

of adults and yearlings, including unweaned foals of the year. At the time these appropriate

management levels were developed, traditional inventory periods were in late winter or very early

in the year, typically in February or March.

This period included foals from the previous year that had perished or survived to approach

their first birthday, and the foals of the year had not yet been born. Therefore, the number

counted represented what the adult population would be for the following year, not considering

subsequent mortality.

Lately, there has been a shift in inventory times to favor the months of July and August. When a

herd is counted at this time, most of the foals of the year have been born and many are 2 months

of age or older. Therefore, an inventory of the same herd in the same calendar year will yield

a higher number, barring some unusual late-winter event resulting in unusually high mortality,

than would have occurred earlier in the year.

At one time a “Minimum Viable Population” was a widely accepted term among scientists and

behaviorists. The concept can best be described in terms of genetic material and its diversity

rather than as a specific number of horses. Blood typing was necessary to determine the genetic

characteristics of a given population. The identification of a specific population level for an area

that represents a Minimum Viable Population is also influenced by the amount and frequency of

interaction with other populations. It is generally agreed that 50 competent breeding animals will

constitute a Minimum Viable Population under most circumstances.

Inventory practices are under review by the National Program Office. Inventory practices might

be standardized, and any such standardization could include a uniform method of counting a

population. Increased interest in the genetic character of a particular herd has caused some

differing views on the expression of population sizes and objectives.

Geneticists usually define a population in terms of the effective population, which consists of the

number of competent breeding-age animals. Therefore, colts of the year, yearlings, a portion of

the 2-year olds, and the very old would not be included as part of the effective population count.

The appropriate management level necessary to maintain an effective breeding population of 100

would be approximately 165 adult animals, not including unweaned foals. The exact number

would vary depending on the age and sex distribution of the particular herd.

Implications of Wild Horse Genetic Research

Wild horses managed on public lands have a variety of histories and originate from a variety of

backgrounds. Advances in genetic research have enabled the BLM to identify the specific genetic

stock from which a wild horse population originates, thereby assisting in identifying the history of

a population. The genetic roots of most of the horses are predominantly American, and some

have beginnings as recent as the period following World War II when horses that had been used

by the U.S. Army Calvary were released on public lands. Occasionally, populations have been

encountered whose genetic roots can be traced to the Spanish exploration period through the

identification of genotypes associated with the New World Iberian (Spanish Colonial) breeds.

Populations with this distinctive genotype provide a genetic resource that the majority of wild

horses on public lands do not provide. The wild horses in the Lander Field Office’s Antelope

Hills HMA are such a population.

Appendix V Wild Horse Management in the Lander

Planning Area February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1807

In 2001, blood samples from wild horses were taken from the Cyclone Rim area in the Antelope

Hills HMA and were provided to Dr. E. Gus Cothran of the Equine Parentage Testing and

Research Laboratory at the University of Kentucky. Results from the genetic analysis of these

samples identified a clear contribution from New World Iberian breeds. The highest average

genetic association of the blood samples provided were the Spanish Colonial breeds. The next

highest average genetic association was with North American Gaited breeds, most likely from

the routine escape of domestic saddle stock from the surrounding areas. A report of the results

of this genetic analysis is available at the Lander Field Office.

As genetic testing continues with the wild horse populations throughout the Red Desert

meta-population, the necessity of maintaining the population of wild horses in the Antelope

Hills HMA in genetic isolation could vary. If populations adjacent to the Antelope Hills HMA

share the prevalence of New World Iberian genomes, inter-mingling these populations would

be beneficial to maintain the genetic resource; therefore, isolating and maintaining an internally

viable population in the Antelope Hills HMA would not be required. However, if the New

World Iberian genes are prevalent only in Antelope Hills, further intermingling could cause this

genetic resource to disappear. Continued monitoring and research could result in adjustments

to management decisions for the Antelope Hills HMA. Adjustments would be implemented

following appropriate analysis and maintenance of management documents.

Wild Horse Management History in the State Of Wyoming and the Planning Area

In 1971, in response to the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, Wyoming

BLM identified the existing wild horse habitats and populations in the state that would likely be

subject to the provisions of the act. These identifications were made using the best information

and understanding available at the time. The result was 30 areas in the State of Wyoming with

populations totaling 4,411 horses. Of those, 1,049 were estimated to be privately owned horses

that would be claimed and removed from the range under the provisions of the act. Those 30

areas comprised a total of 6,557,160 acres of public lands, 389,112 acres of land owned by the

State of Wyoming, and 2,479,096 acres of privately owned lands. The 30 areas varied greatly

in size and land ownership.

As soon as the act passed, a number of activities that had served to limit the growth in horse

numbers and the expansion of their ranges ceased. Horse populations in Wyoming began to grow.

Following passage of the act, BLM personnel began to accumulate additional information about

the horses and their habitats. Area boundaries were refined as more was learned about the

seasonal needs and habits of horses. By 1974, the list of 30 areas had increased to 40 areas,

comprising a total of 6,820,749 acres of public lands, 406,103 acres of land owned by the State

of Wyoming, and 2,355,852 acres of privately owned lands. As before, the 40 areas varied

greatly in size and land ownership.

The period of 1976 to 1984 saw a great deal of activity in land use planning. For Wyoming, this

can be called the Management Framework Plan Era. During this period, the 40 areas previously

identified were combined into 24 areas. The Management Framework Plan process resulted in

identifying 14 of those 24 areas that, in one way or another, failed to meet suitability requirements

for maintaining a long-term healthy population of horses in accordance with the intent of the Act.

One of the two most important criteria was that the area contained substantial amounts of private

land. The other was that the horse population was too small to continue to thrive when isolated

from customary sources of new genetic stock. The remaining 10 areas were then designated as

HMAs. The HMAs comprised 3,322,776 public acres, 152,551 acres of land owned by the State

February 2013

Appendix V Wild Horse Management in the

Lander Planning Area
1808 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

of Wyoming, and 861,022 acres of privately owned land. This process also identified population

objectives for these herds, totaling 2,673 horses.

With respect to horses in Wyoming, this has resulted in the 16 HMAs currently recognized in the

state. These 16 areas comprise 3,664,002 acres of public land, 154,737 acres of land owned by

the State of Wyoming, and 846,243 acres of privately owned lands. The 16 areas still vary in

size and land ownership, although not to the extent that they once did. Particularly worthy of

note is the substantial amount of private land now included in designated HMAs. Much of the

private acreage consists of land owned or controlled by the Rock Springs Grazing Association of

southwestern Wyoming. It has made its lands available to an agreed-upon number of wild horses

since 1979. Without access to those lands, approximately 1.5 million acres of adjoining and

commingled public lands would be unavailable for inclusion in HMAs. This would, in effect,

eliminate one-third of the free-roaming horses in Wyoming. The current, combined population

objective (appropriate management level) for wild, free-roaming horses in Wyoming is 3,263,

or 18 percent more than it was in 1980. Without the access to the private lands, the combined

appropriate management level would be only 2,038.

If an effective breeding population of 100 horses is necessary to maintain a genetically viable

herd of wild horses, 9 of the 16 HMAs in Wyoming do not have appropriate management levels

that would indicate genetically stable long-term populations. However, wild horse herds in these

HMAs are usually part of a larger meta-population comprising adjacent HMAs through migration

and animals exchanging. The meta-population is the entire gene pool available to a specific herd.

When originally identified and reviewed through planning, HMA boundaries were designated

to reflect common herd location, as well as to simplify administration and management of wild

horses. As a result, several HMAs could be designated adjacent to one another in different BLM

field office planning areas, or simply separated by geographic features such as watersheds. The

individual populations in each HMA might be separated for most of the year, but both could

share the same winter range. Sharing resources allows for regular interaction between the two

populations. Interaction allows for horses from each herd to be recruited by and assimilated

into the other. Therefore, although the appropriate management level of the individual HMAs

would appear to be genetically deficient, each population is periodically infused with new genetic

material and the genetic diversity of both herds is enhanced. In any given year, only a very

few bands from each herd might actually exchange members. However, over time, the normal

behaviors of each herd cause the mixing to become widespread.

From the standpoint of genetic viability, the required level of exchange of animals and the related

introduction of new genetic material is not high. In small populations of less than 150 animals,

the introduction of one or two competent breeding animals per generation (i.e., approximately

10 years) will ensure the maintenance of the genetic resource. Table V.1, “Wild Horse Regional

Meta-populations Associated with the Planning Area” (p. 1809), identifies the wild horse HMAs

in the planning area, and the meta-populations in which the horses of the HMAs interact.

Appendix V Wild Horse Management in the Lander

Planning Area February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1809

Table V.1. Wild Horse Regional Meta-populations Associated with the Planning Area

HMAs in the Planning Area Meta-population

Name

Appropriate

Management

Level

Name

Appropriate

Management

Level

HMA(s) in

the Metapopulation

Type of

Interaction

Points of

Contact

Antelope Hills1 60-82 Red Desert

includes Divide

Basin

895-1324 Stewart Creek

Lost Creek

Antelope Hills

Divide Basin

Crooks

Mountain

Male

migration,

female

exchange

Hay Reservoir

Bare Ring

Hadsell

Osborne Draw

Green

Mountain1

170-300 Red Desert

includes Divide

Basin

895-1324 Stewart Creek

Lost Creek

Antelope Hills

Divide Basin

Crooks

Mountain

Male

migration,

female

exchange

Hay Reservoir

Bare Ring

Hadsell

Osborne Draw

Crooks

Mountain1

65-85 Red Desert

includes Divide

Basin

895-1324 Stewart Creek

Lost Creek

Antelope Hills

Divide Basin

Green

Mountain

Male

migration,

female

exchange

Hay Reservoir

Bare Ring

Hadsell

Osborne Draw

Conant Creek2 60-100 North Lander 320-535 Dishpan Butte

Muskrat Open

Rock Creek

Mountain

Male

migration,

female

exchange

Beaver Rim

Lower Conant

Creek

Upper Conant

Creek

Dishpan Butte2 50-100 North Lander 320-535 Muskrat Open

Rock Creek

Mountain

Conant Creek

Male

migration,

female

exchange

East Fork of

Long Creek

Beaver Rim

Muskrat Basin2 160-250 North Lander 320-535 Rock Creek

Mountain

Conant Creek

Dishpan Butte

Male

migration,

female

exchange

Beaver Rim

Lower Conant

Creek

Upper Conant

Creek

Rock Creek

Mountain2

50-85 North Lander 320-535 Muskrat Basin

Conant Creek

Dishpan Butte

Male

migration,

female

exchange

Beaver Rim

Above and

Below

Conant Creek

Drainage

1 Portions of the Antelope Hills, Crooks Mountain, Green Mountain, and Lost Creek HMA boundaries have no

fences. Therefore, horses are free to migrate and exchange. Horses in the Stewart Creek and Divide Basin HMAs

are fenced off from neighboring HMAs and must negotiate a fence in order to mix.

2 Horses in the North Lander Complex Meta-population occasionally mix. These animals must negotiate fences in

order to exchange with one another.

HMA Herd Management Area

The following trends have emerged in Wyoming since the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming

Horses and Burros Act:

1. The average herd size has increased from 147 to 197.

2. The area of public land available for use by horses has increased slightly since 1980.

3. The area of private land occupied has decreased from 2.5 million to 846,243 acres.

February 2013

Appendix V Wild Horse Management in the

Lander Planning Area
1810 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4. Of the 16 herds, 14 are part of meta-populations greater than 300.

These same trends are representative of the changes that have occurred in the planning area since

the passage of the act. In 1971, an estimated 435 horses subject to management under the act

occupied 2,116,095 acres in 6 areas. Today, an estimated 1,540 horses subject to management

under the act occupy approximately 929,000 acres in 3 areas.

It should be noted that the BLM has routinely removed excess and stray horses from the range

since 1978. During that period, more than 27,000 horses have been removed from Wyoming

rangelands and placed through the BLM's Adopt-a-Horse-or-Burro program. Nonetheless, the

population is still in excess of 4,000 animals, an important indicator that the cornerstone principle

of the act, a thriving natural ecological balance, is not imperiled by BLM management of the

horses.

Population Management Actions in the Planning Area

Population management actions in the planning area take place as part of a state and national

undertaking to allocate scarce resources, and equally scarce space, for the removal of horses

from public rangelands. This is necessary so that effective planning and scheduling can occur

BLM-wide. No single office controls the fiscal and logistical resources necessary to affect the

desired management of horses in its jurisdiction. Instead, each office is part of the BLM-wide

wild horse management program. A key part of this program is the identification of a gather cycle

for a state, which can result in gathers taking place in less than ideal conditions in a particular

HMA. Once established, the gather cycle needs to be followed as closely as possible.

Appropriate management levels were established to allow for a range of fluctuation in the

population, while still meeting the criteria for a valid appropriate management level. In evaluating

the appropriate management level, a lower limit was identified and then examined to ensure

that the particular herd will remain genetically viable if periodically reduced to that level. This

is a crucial consideration in many of the smaller herds in the state. Concurrently, the upper

limit is evaluated to determine that, under normal climatic conditions, resource damage or other

substantial conflicts would not be likely to occur if the population were allowed to increase to

this level cyclically. The appropriate management level will equate to the average population

level during a management cycle. Analysis of various gather cycles (occurring outside the scope

of this RMP) is occurring as part of the statewide wild horse management strategy. Three- and

4-year gather cycles for the state are being evaluated and compared. Cycles longer than 4 years

are also being evaluated as part of a management scheme that would employ fertility control to

limit population increases.

When a gather cycle is chosen for implementation in the state, part of the evaluation leading to

the choice will be the ability of the Wyoming BLM to remain in substantial conformance with

the consent decree of August 28, 2003, and all other relevant law and policy. The upper and

lower limits would be reevaluated and adjusted to ensure maintenance of a thriving ecological

balance. Because the appropriate management levels were evaluated considering the potential for

adverse effects from a 4-year gather cycle and the associated level of population fluctuation, a

shorter cycle and lower average population levels would still serve the purposes of the appropriate

management level determination process.

Fertility control has become a widely used tool for restraining reproduction. Currently, the most

widely used method is Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP). Most herds for which the BLM implements

PZP vaccination are administered a 22-month controlled release formula in conjunction with a

Appendix V Wild Horse Management in the Lander

Planning Area February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1811

gather. Some analysis indicates that this 22-month formula provides infertility at 94 percent for

year one, 82 percent for year two, and 68 percent for year three. Fertility returns to normal on

the fourth year. The BLM issued an instruction memorandum in March of 2009 to direct and

guide the implementation of fertility control in the field. It is the policy of BLM to apply fertility

control as a component of all gathers unless there is a compelling management reason not to do

so. For the Lander Field Office, all HMAs have been fertility treated using the PZP-22 fertility

control vaccine. The North Lander Complex was treated for the first time in July 2009. Herds

in three of the five HMAs in the Red Desert Complex (three managed by Lander and two by

Rawlins) were treated in 2006, 2009, and 2011.

Inventory Practices in the Planning Area

Inventory practices in the planning area have developed over time. At present, all inventories in

the planning area are conducted using a helicopter-type aircraft. Typically, east-west transects

at 1 to 1 1⁄2 mile intervals are employed, flight height is approximately 500 feet above ground

level, and airspeed is approximately 80 miles per hour. These practices have been developed to

minimize stress to horses and other animals and to comply with BLM aircraft safety guidelines.

Some inventories have been completed using fixed-wing aircraft, as part of a research project

involving the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Discipline from Fort Collins,

Colorado. These inventories employ two observers, including one representing the Wyoming

Department of Agriculture. This approach yields an actual, independent double count of half

of the area, and a constructed double count of the other half. These results are then analyzed

statistically and evaluated. Other inventories typically employ a single or double observer using a

direct count method.

Animal Health

Animal health issues are considered at two levels: Horses removed from the range and maintained

in BLM facilities, and horses remaining on the range. Both levels are afforded appropriate

attention through the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that BLM has with the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). This MOU

provides BLM with access to a complete staff of federal veterinarians in each state. It also

supplies access to a national program manager located in Fort Collins, Colorado, who can access

the Veterinary Services Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Veterinary Services

Western Regional hub, and U.S. Department of the Interior Biological Resources Division of the

U.S. Geological Survey. In addition, this ensures that APHIS will be able to incorporate the wild,

free-roaming horses managed by BLM into its responsibility to ensure the health and safety

of the nation’s plants and animals.

At both levels, the staff of APHIS is involved with the State of Wyoming, private practitioners,

and other federal agencies to ensure the appropriateness of all activities involving wild,

free-roaming horses managed by BLM.

The Wild, Free-Roaming Nature (of Wild Horses)

There are approximately 30,000 wild horses in North America, and approximately 2,000,000

domestic horses. In the Lander RMP, the term “wild, free-roaming nature” is used to describe

wild horses.

Currently, horses in all of the HMAs exhibit a wild, free-roaming nature. They are typically wary

of humans, but do not display signs that would indicate an intense fear. They rely on their acute

February 2013

Appendix V Wild Horse Management in the

Lander Planning Area
1812 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

senses, especially their sight, to enable them to maintain a feeling of safety. They use their speed

and agility to quickly regain a “safe” distance when disturbed. They do not recognize or seek any

dependence on humans for sustenance. One of the principle distinctions between domestic and

wild horses is the ability of wild horses to make certain choices. They can choose their space,

their diet, and their company. They can choose optimal behaviors for survival. In contrast, their

domesticated cousins have only limited choices and depend on humans for sustenance.

The loss of a horse’s wild, free-roaming nature is not a fatal disease, but it does have consequences

as well as causes. The wild, free-roaming nature takes a certain kind and amount of space to

sustain. What is currently available to the horses in the HMAs satisfies both kinds of space.

Changes introduced to either the kind or amount of space available will cause the horses to make

different choices, with the choices becoming more varied as more change occurs. Change comes

in a variety of forms, most of which are either a function of, or are accompanied by, increased

human presence. New roads, structures, facilities, and fences are examples. As a consequence of

these increased human interactions, wild horses can lose their wild nature. Wild horses seek out

the most convenient foraging areas, and therefore can become more competitive with domestic

livestock. Band structure and function could cease to provide a secure environment in which

young horses can mature and learn successful wild horse behavior.

Appendix V Wild Horse Management in the Lander

Planning Area February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1813

Appendix W. Travel Management Planning

General Planning Direction

All actions associated with the management of motorized vehicle areas and trails must meet the

designation criteria contained below (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 8342.1):

The Authorized Officer shall designate all public lands as either open, limited, or

closed to motorized vehicles. All designations shall be based on the protection of

the resources of the public lands, the promotion of the safety of all the users of the

public lands, and the minimization of conflicts among various uses of the public

lands; and in accordance with the following criteria:

(a) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed,

vegetation, air, or other resources of the public lands, and to prevent impairment of

wilderness suitability.

(b) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or

significant disruption of wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect

endangered or threatened species and their habitats.

(c) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle

use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring

public lands, and to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions

in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors.

(d) Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas

or primitive areas. Areas and trails shall be located in natural areas only if the

authorized officer determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not

adversely affect their natural, esthetic, scenic, or other values for which such

areas are established.

In addition, areas and trails for all types of conveyances must support the goals, objectives,

and management actions contained in the Resource Management Plan (RMP), and applicable

laws and policies.

Lander Field Office Area Designations and Decisions

Travel designations in the Lander RMP include “limited” and “closed,” as described below.

Limited designations restrict travel in specified areas and/or on designated routes, roads, vehicle

ways, or trails. This designation is used where travel use must be restricted to meet specific

resource management objectives. Examples of limitations include number or type of conveyance;

time or season of use; permitted or licensed use only; use limited to designated roads and trails; or

other limitations if restrictions are necessary to meet resource management objectives, including

certain competitive- or intensive-use areas that have special limitations (see 43 CFR 8340.0-5).

There are three distinct uses of the limited designation in the Lander RMP, including “designated”

roads and trails, which under earlier guidance was considered a separate designation from limited.

The three types of limited designations are:

● Travel limited to designated roads and trails; areas where travel is restricted to designated

roads and trails.

February 2013 Appendix W Travel Management Planning
1814 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Travel limited to designated roads and trails and limited seasonally; in these areas travel is

restricted to seasonal use periods and to designated roads trails.

● Travel limited to existing roads and trails; areas where travel is restricted to existing roads

and trails. This designation is an interim designation until route-specific planning can occur.

At the point at which travel planning occurs, motorized travel in the area will be limited to

designated roads and trails.

Closed designations identify areas where motorized vehicle travel is prohibited. Access by

means other than motorized vehicle, such as mechanized (e.g., bicycle) or nonmotorized use

(e.g. pedestrian or pack), is permitted. Areas are designated closed if closure to all vehicular

use is necessary to protect resources, promote visitor safety, or reduce use conflicts (see 43

CFR 8340.0-5).

Future Implementation Planning

The designations defined above require an additional level of effort and planning prior to

implementation. A Travel Management Plan (TMP) is the document that describes the decisions

related to the selection and management of the transportation network. This document can be

an appendix to an RMP, incorporated in an activity implementation plan (such as a Recreation

Implementation Plan), or a stand-alone document after development of the RMP. Route-specific

decisions in a TMP support the RMP goals, objectives, and management actions, and the

designation criteria in 43 CFR 8342.1.

A complete TMP includes:

● Criteria to select or reject specific transportation linear features in the final travel management

network; to add new roads, primitive roads or trails; and to specify limitations. The criteria

must include those identified in 43 CFR 8342.1.

● A map of roads, primitive roads, and trails for all travel modes and uses, including motorized,

nonmotorized, and mechanized travel.

● Definitions and additional limitations for specific roads, primitive roads, and trails.

● Guidelines for managing and maintaining the travel management system. This includes, at a

minimum, the development of route-specific roads, primitive roads, and trail management

objectives, a sign plan, an education/public information plan, an enforcement plan, and a

process requiring the application of engineering best management practices.

● Indicators to guide future plan maintenance, amendments, or revisions related to the travel

management network.

● Needed easements and rights-of-way (ROWs) (to be issued to the Bureau of Land

Management [BLM] or others) to maintain the existing road, primitive road, and trail network

providing public land access.

● Provisions for new route construction or adaptation/relocation of existing routes.

● A plan for decommissioning and rehabilitating closed or unauthorized routes.

● A monitoring plan.

● Classification of all roads, primitive roads, and trails, designated for travel in a TMP, as assets

in the Facility Asset Management System. All roads, primitive roads, and trails will also be

identified as such in the Ground Transportation Linear Feature geospatial database.

Document Purpose

To the extent practical, TMPs should be developed concurrent with the RMP. Possible reasons

for deferring the development of a TMP might be size or complexity of the area, controversy, or

Appendix W Travel Management Planning February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1815

incomplete data. Travel management planning can either be completed concurrently with the

RMP or deferred to an implementation plan. In either case, certain requirements must be met in

the RMP.

Because the Lander Field Office final travel and transportation network is being deferred, the

purpose of this appendix is to document the decision-making process used to develop the initial

network, provide the basis for future implementation-level decisions, and provide guidelines for

making transportation network adjustments throughout the life of the plan. The following items

are contained within this appendix:

● A map of the known network of transportation linear features, including modes of travel;

● Long-term management goals and objectives for the transportation system;

● Management objectives for areas or sub-areas where route designations were not completed

concurrent with the RMP;

● A process for moving from an interim designation of “limited to existing roads, primitive

roads, and trails,” to a designation of “limited to designated roads, primitive roads, and trails

upon completion of the TMP;”

● Identification of incomplete travel and transportation tasks including:

○ Additional data needs and a strategy to collect needed information;

○ Identification of a clear planning sequence for subsequent road and trail selection and

identification, including the public involvement process (focusing on user groups and

stakeholders), initial route selection criteria, and constraints; and

○ A schedule to complete the area or sub-area road, primitive road, and trail selection

process.

Travel Management Areas

Map 142 displays the Travel Management Areas in the planning area. These areas represent

potential TMP units, or areas where existing travel management decisions are different from the

surrounding area. As such, and further discussed in this document, these areas will provide

boundaries for the development and prioritization of future TMPs.

Travel Management Plans

Table W.1, “Travel Management Plan, Priority Rank, Timeframes for Completion, and Interim

and Final Travel Restrictions” (p. 1815), lists TMPs, priority rankings, timeframes for completion,

interim travel restrictions, and restrictions following development of a TMP.

Table W.1. Travel Management Plan, Priority Rank, Timeframes for Completion, and

Interim and Final Travel Restrictions

Travel Management

Plan Name

Priority Rank Timeframe

Interim Travel

Restrictions1

Final Restrictions

After Development

of a Travel

Management Plan2

Zone 1 – Twin Creek 1 Motorized travel

limited to existing

roads and trails

identified in Map

112.

Motorized travel

limited to designated

roads and trails.

Zone 2 – Johnny

Behind the Rocks

2

Directly Following

the ROD

Closed to motorized

travel. Administrative

access will be

available to administer

Closed to motorized

travel. Administrative

access will be

available to

February 2013 Appendix W Travel Management Planning
1816 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Travel Management

Plan Name

Priority Rank Timeframe

Interim Travel

Restrictions1

Final Restrictions

After Development

of a Travel

Management Plan2

livestock grazing

permits, as well as

for maintenance and

development of the

recreation area. Open

to mechanized and

nonmotorized travel.

administer livestock

grazing permits,

as well as for

maintenance and

development of the

recreation area. Open

to mechanized and

nonmotorized travel.

Zone 3 – Lander

Slope/Red Canyon

(including Baldwin

Creek WSR and Sinks

Canyon Climbing

Area)

3 All travel limited

seasonally (dates

and travel limitation

are defined in

Alternative D),

overland motorized

and mechanized

travel is limited to

existing roads and

trails. Over-snow

vehicle travel is open,

subject to seasonal

limitations. Baldwin

Creek is closed

to motorized and

mechanized travel.

Sinks Canyon is

closed to motorized

travel.

All travel limited

seasonally (dates and

travel limitation are

defined in Alternative

D), motorized and

mechanized travel

limited to designated

roads and trails.

Over-snow vehicle

travel is open,

subject to seasonal

limitations. Baldwin

Creek is closed

to motorized and

mechanized travel.

Sinks Canyon is

closed to motorized

travel.

Zone 4 – Antelope

Hills including

Sweetwater Canyon

WSA

4 Motorized travel

limited to existing

roads and trails

identified in Map

112. In Sweetwater

Canyon, motorized

travel is limited

to roads and trails

contained on Map 112.

Closed to over-snow

motorized vehicle

travel.

Motorized travel

limited to designated

roads and trails.

Sweetwater Canyon is

closed to over-snow

motorized vehicle

travel.

Zone 5 – The Bus @

Baldwin Creek

5

Zone 6 – Dubois

Badlands WSA

6

Closed to motorized

travel, open to

nonmotorized and

mechanized travel.

Closed to over-snow

motorized vehicle

travel.

Closed to motorized

travel, open to

nonmotorized and

mechanized travel.

Closed to over-snow

motorized vehicle

travel.

Zone 6 – Dubois

(including East Fork

ACEC, Whiskey

Mountain ACEC,

Whiskey Mountain

WSA, and Little Red

Creek area)

6

Priority Deferred

Motorized travel is

limited to existing

roads and trails.

In the East Fork

ACEC, motorized and

mechanized travel is

limited seasonally (as

Motorized travel

limited to designated

roads and trails.

In the East Fork

ACEC, motorized and

mechanized travel is

limited seasonally (as

Appendix W Travel Management Planning February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1817

Travel Management

Plan Name

Priority Rank Timeframe

Interim Travel

Restrictions1

Final Restrictions

After Development

of a Travel

Management Plan2

defined in Alternative

D) to existing roads

and trails.

In the Whiskey

Mountain ACEC,

motorized and

mechanized travel

limited seasonally (as

defined in Alternative

D) to existing roads

and trails.

The Whiskey

Mountain WSA and

Little Red Creek area

will be closed to

motorized travel.

defined in Alternative

D) to designated roads

and trails.

Motorized travel is

limited to designated

roads and trails. In the

Whiskey Mountain

ACEC, motorized

and mechanized

travel will be limited

seasonally (as defined

in Alternative D) to

designated roads and

trails.

The Whiskey

Mountain WSA and

Little Red Creek area

will be closed to

motorized travel.

Zone 7 – Green

Mountain

7 Motorized and

mechanized travel

limited seasonally to

existing roads and

trails.

Motorized and

mechanized travel

limited seasonally to

designated roads and

trails.

Zone 8 – Agate Flats 8

Priority Deferred

Motorized travel

limited to existing

roads and trails

identified in Map

112.

Motorized travel

limited to designated

roads and trails.

Zone 9 – Sweetwater

Rocks WSA

9 Motorized travel

limited to roads and

trails contained on

Map 112. Closed to

over-snow motorized

vehicle travel.

Motorized travel

limited to designated

roads and trails.

Closed to over-snow

motorized vehicle

travel.

Zone 10 – Crooks 10 Motorized travel

limited to existing

roads and trails

identified in Map

112.

Motorized travel

limited to designated

roads and trails.

Zone 11 – Copper

Mountain WSA

11 Closed to motorized

travel. Open to

nonmotorized travel.

Closed to motorized

travel. Open to

nonmotorized travel.

Zone 11 – Bridger 11

Zone 12 – Rattlesnake

Hills

12

Zone 13 – Moneta 13

Deferred

Motorized travel

limited to existing

roads and trails

identified in Map

112.

Motorized travel

limited to designated

roads and trails.

1 Additional over-snow vehicle restrictions are discussed in the management actions in Chapter 2. These decisions

are fully enforced upon the signing of the ROD.

February 2013 Appendix W Travel Management Planning
1818 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Travel Management

Plan Name

Priority Rank Timeframe

Interim Travel

Restrictions1

Final Restrictions

After Development

of a Travel

Management Plan2

2 Additional restrictions and stipulations on travel might be applied at the TMP stage. These stipulations could

include route-specific limitations, such as closing a route seasonally, limiting the type of vehicle or conveyance that

can travel the route, and/or other supplementary rules necessary to address planning issues.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ROD Record of Decision

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WSR Wild and Scenic River

Additional Data and Information Needs for all Lander Field Office TMPs

Travel management planning across the entire planning area is being deferred primarily due to the

need for additional data and information. The following items are needed prior to completing

Lander Field Office TMPs:

● Route identification and inventory has been completed for the entire Lander Field Office;

however, most of this information was developed through Geographic Information System

(GIS)-based layers. All TMPs will need to have some level of spot checking, internal review,

and review from stakeholders and members of the general public. This spot-checking and

review process is reflected in all TMP timeframes discussed in this document.

● Pursuant to Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2012-067; cultural resource inventory

requirements, priorities, and strategies will vary depending on the quality of the existing

information, the extent of potential change to the location, the expected density and nature

of historic properties, and the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the route

designation, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), tribes, and

other interested parties. Prior to the development of a TMP, cultural resource specialists will

develop an inventory strategy that addresses these factors.

● No area in the planning area has a partial or fully completed TMP. Therefore, all elements

associated with a TMP need to be completed for the entire planning area.

● The areas identified for deferred travel planning are tentative planning units. It is possible

that adjustments to the boundary of these planning units will be necessary to respond to

new information, issues, or considerations. Any adjustments to the area boundaries will be

a component of the TMP process, occur early in the planning process, and be subject to

public review.

● Finally, all areas in the planning area have RMP objectives that will influence travel planning.

Some areas (e.g., Areas of Critical Environmental Concern [ACECs] and Special Recreation

Management Areas [SRMAs]) have area- and program-specific objectives. At a minimum,

all areas have general travel planning objectives tiered to the designation criteria in 43 CFR

§8342.1. It is possible that additional travel planning implementation objectives will need

to be developed to respond to new information or considerations. The development of

implementation objectives will be a component of the Lander Field Office TMP process,

occur early in the planning process, and be subject to public review.

Detailed Description of TMPs ‘Directly Following the Record of Decision (ROD)’

Appendix W Travel Management Planning February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1819

The following TMPs are identified above for travel management planning directly following the

finalization of the ROD (or within 2 years after the completion of the RMP process):

1. Twin Creek TMP

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

Goals: LR 6, LR 7, LR 8, LR 9, LR 11, LR 12, and SD 25

Objectives: LR 6.1, LR 7.1, LR 8.1, LR 9.1, LR 12.1-12.3, and SD 25.1-25.4

Management Actions: 6044

Primary Travelers

Hunters (fall, winter, spring), antler hunters, livestock grazing permittee(s), and

private land owners.

2. Johnny Behind the Rocks TMP

RMP goals, objectives, and management actions that will influence travel.

Goals: LR 6 and LR 7

Objectives: LR 6.1, LR 6.3, LR 7.1, LR 7.3, LR 11, LR 11.1, LR 12.1-12.3, LR

13.1-13.3, LR 25.1-25.5

Management Actions: 6040, 6041, 6081, and RMZ desired future setting

descriptions contained in the Lander Community SRMA in Appendix C (p. 1453).

Primary Travelers

Upon finalization of the RMP, the primary travelers in this area will be hikers,

mountain bikers, horseback riders, trail runners, and livestock grazing permittees.

Strategy and Task Schedule

The following is a strategy and general task schedule for the development of these TMPs:

A. Preplanning Information.

A.1. Identify area-specific RMP goals, objectives, and decisions

that will influence travel. Identify implementation objectives

necessary to respond to new information or considerations.

A.2. Identify primary travelers.

A.3. Develop purpose and need for each area based on A.2-A.3 and

designation criteria contained in CFRs.

B. Issue and planning criteria development.

B.1. Develop planning issues associated with A.

B.1.1. Develop indicators in response to planning issues identified

in B.1.

February 2013 Appendix W Travel Management Planning
1820 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

B.1.2. Develop route selection criteria (or standards) associated

with B.1.1.

B.2. Identify and address data gaps.

C. Within a month after completion of the RMP process, cooperators and the public will have an

opportunity to provide comment on the above, as well as the existing route inventory.

D. Evaluate and Refine.

D.1. Evaluate route selection criteria using existing routes as a test

case.

D.1.1. Route selection criteria should provide meaningful insight

into individual route parameters/impacts and demonstrate variation

in the magnitude of route impact.

D.1.2. Route selection criteria should give a picture of the

magnitude of the cumulative impact or overall network impact.

D.1.3. Route selection criteria should provide for adaptive

responses and analysis parameters for future travel actions, such as,

adding roads or trails, or actions to mitigate new issues.

D.2. Present route selection criteria and results, as well as general

alternative themes, to cooperators and the public.

D.3. Refine route selection criteria and general alternative themes.

E. Develop impact analysis on No Action Alternative and resource conservation alternatives.

E.1. Route selection criteria applied to No Action Alternative

(Alternative A - all routes designated open) and resource

conservation alternative (Alternative B - all routes that do not meet

selection criteria will be closed).

E.2. Develop impact analysis for alternatives A and B.

E.2.1. Do these alternatives meet the purpose and need?

E.2.2. Drop (considered but not analyzed in detail) alternatives that

do not meet the purpose and need.

E.3. Develop and identify standardized mitigation measures

(specific to selection criteria) to address impacts associated with

routes not meeting criteria.

F. Develop Alternative C (All routes that do not meet route selection criteria are mitigated open)

based on step E.3.

G. Develop impact analysis for Alternative C.

H. 30-day review for cooperators and interested public and 5-day workshops to provide input.

I. Develop Preferred Alternative (D).

Appendix W Travel Management Planning February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1821

J. Develop impact analysis for Alternative D.

K. Issue draft TMP with 30-day comment period for the public.

0 to 2 years after the signing of the ROD:

L. Respond to public comments.

M. Issue final and decision document.

N. Implementation.

Detailed Description of Priority Deferred Areas

The following TMPs are identified above as a priority deferred area for travel planning, meaning

planning will be conducted within 3 to 9 years after the completion of the RMP process. The

accompanying schedule assumes:

● The Bus @ Baldwin Creek area is being deferred specifically to provide time to resolve

management inconsistencies associated with trail development/promotion on State of

Wyoming-administered lands in the area. Resolution of this issue could come in the form of

a land swap and/or Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM, interested, parties,

and the State of Wyoming.

● Existing staffing plus adequate staffing to address ID Team needs, as well as staffing to collect

additional inventory information.

● Limited scope creep of TMP, public involvement, and/or National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) process.

● Full completion of the Twin Creek and Johnny Behind the Rocks TMPs.

3. Lander Slope/Red Canyon (including Baldwin Creek Wild and Scenic River (WSR) and

Sinks Canyon Climbing Area) TMP: year three (after signing of ROD) inventory, years three

to four planning, year four implementation

This TMP does not include the Bus @ Baldwin Creek, which will be a separate TMP.

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

Goals: LR 6-9, LR 11-12, SD 1-5, SD 7, and SD 10 - 11

Objectives: LR 6.1, LR 7.1-7.3, LR 8.1, LR 9.1, LR 12.1-12.3, LR 13.1-13.4, SD

7.1, SD 10.1-10.6, and SD 11.1-11.3

Management Actions: 6034, 6043, 6081, 6087, 6098, 6099, 6119, 7032, and

desired future setting descriptions for the Sinks Canyon Recreation Management

Zone (RMZ) described in Appendix C (p. 1453).

Primary Travelers:

Hunters (fall, winter, spring), wood cutters, antler hunters, livestock grazing

permittee(s), climbers, and private land owners.

4. Antelope Hills TMP: year four (after signing of ROD) inventory, years four to five planning,

year six implementation

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

February 2013 Appendix W Travel Management Planning
1822 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Goals: LR 6, LR 7, LR 8, LR 9, LR 11, LR 12, SD 1-5, and SD 16

Objectives: LR 6.1, 7.1, LR 8.1, LR 9.1, LR 12.1-12.3, SD 1.1-5.6, and SD

16.1-16.3

Management Actions: 6044 and 7004, and Congressionally Designated Trails,

Sweetwater Mining District, Group Use, and Alkali Basin RMZs desired future

setting descriptions contained in Appendix C (p. 1453)

Primary Travelers

Hunters (fall, winter, spring), antler hunters, livestock grazing permittee(s),

wood cutters, mining operators, oil and gas developers, Continental Divide Trail

National Scenic Trail users, handcart trekkers, National Historic Trails enthusiasts

and private land owners.

4. Sweetwater Canyon WSA TMP: year four (after signing of ROD) inventory, years four to

five planning, year six implementation

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

Goals: LR 6, LR 7, LR 8, LR 11, LR 12, LR 13, and SD 6

Objectives: LR 6.1, LR 6.3, LR 7.1-7.3, LR 11.1, LR 11.2, LR 12.1-12.3, LR

13.1-13.4, SD: 6.1, and SD 6.2

Management Actions: 6039, 6047, 7022, and RMZ desired future setting

descriptions contained in Appendix C (p. 1453).

Primary Travelers

Fisherman, hikers, backpackers, horseback riders, hunters, wildlife viewers, and

livestock grazing permittee(s).

5. The Bus @ Baldwin Creek TMP: year four (after signing of ROD) inventory, years four to

five planning, year six implementation

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

Goals: LR 6, and LR 7

Objectives: LR 6.1, LR 6.3, LR 7.1, LR 7.3, LR 11, LR 11.1, LR 12.1-12.3, LR

13.1-13.3, LR 25.1-25.5

Management Actions: 6040, 6041, 6081, and RMZ desired future setting

descriptions contained in the Lander Community SRMA in Appendix C (p. 1453).

Primary Travelers

Hikers, mountain bikers, horseback riders, trail runners, and livestock grazing

permittee(s).

6. Dubois Badlands WSA TMP: years six to seven (after signing of ROD) inventory, years

seven to eight planning, year eight implementation

Appendix W Travel Management Planning February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1823

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

Goals: LR 6, LR 7, LR 8, LR 11, LR 12, LR 13, and SD 6

Objectives: LR 6.1, LR 7.1-7.3, LR 12.1-12.3, LR 13.1-13.4, SD: 6.1, and SD 6.2

Management Actions: 6037 and 7022

Primary Travelers

Wildlife watchers, hunters (fall, winter, spring), mountain bikers, antler hunters,

livestock grazing permittee(s), and private land owners.

6. Dubois TMP (including East Fork ACEC, Whiskey Mountain ACEC, Whiskey Mountain

WSA, and Little Red Creek area): years six to seven (after signing of ROD) inventory, years

seven to eight planning, year eight implementation

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

Goal: PR 8, LR 6-9 LR 11-12, SD 1-5, SD 6-7, SD 12, and SD 13

Objectives: PR 8.1, LR 6.1, LR 7.1-7.3, LR 8.1, LR 9.1, LR 12.1-12.3, LR

13.1-13.4, SD 6.1, SD 7.1, and SD 12.1-12.4

Management Actions: 6034, 6035, 6039, 6042, 6081, 6087, 6102, 6103, 7022,

7032, 1049 and Dubois Mill-Site RMZ desired future setting described in

Appendix C (p. 1453).

Primary Travelers

Activities associated with management of bighorn sheep, wildlife watchers,

hunters (fall, winter, spring), antler hunters, livestock grazing permittee(s), and

private land owners.

7. Green Mountain TMP: years eight to nine (after signing of ROD) inventory, years nine to ten

planning, year ten implementation.

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

Goals: LR 6, LR 7, LR 8, LR 11, LR 12, SD 15

Objectives: LR: 6.1, LR 7.1-7.3, LR 12.1-12.3, and SD 15.1-15.4

Management Actions: 6034

Primary Travelers

Hunters (fall, winter, spring), wood cutters, antler hunters, livestock grazing

permittee(s), private land owners, mining operators, oil and gas developers, and

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail hikers.

8. Agate Flats TMP: years ten to eleven inventory (after signing of ROD), years eleven to

twelve planning, year twelve implementation

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

February 2013 Appendix W Travel Management Planning
1824 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Goals: LR 6, LR 7, LR 8, LR 9, LR 11, LR 12, SD 1-5, SD 16, and SD 23

Objectives: LR 6.1, LR 7.1, LR 8.1, LR 9.1, LR 12.1-12.3, SD 1.1-5.6, SD

16.1-16.3, SD 23.1-23.3

Management Actions: 7004 and Sweetwater Rocks RMZ desired future setting

descriptions contained in Appendix C (p. 1453).

Primary Travelers

Hunters (fall), livestock grazing permittee(s), mining operators, oil and gas

developers, National Historic Trails enthusiasts, and private land owners.

9. Sweetwater Rocks WSA TMP: years ten to eleven inventory, years eleven to twelve planning,

year twelve implementation

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

Goals: LR 6, LR 7, LR 8, LR 11, LR 12, LR 13, and SD 6

Objectives: LR 6.1, LR 6.3, LR 7.1-7.3, LR 11.1, LR 11.2, LR 12.1-12.3, LR

13.1-13.4, SD 6.1-6.2, and SD 23.1-23.3

Management Actions: 6039, 6081, 7022, and Sweetwater Rocks RMZ desired

future setting descriptions in Appendix C (p. 1453).

Primary Travelers

Fall hunters, hikers, backpackers, climbers, horseback riders, wildlife viewers,

livestock grazing permittee(s), and access to private in-holdings.

Strategy and Task Schedule

The following is a strategy and general task schedule for the development of these TMPs:

A. Preplanning

A.1. Adjust TMP boundaries as necessary to respond to new

information or considerations.

A.2. Identify existing RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that

will influence travel.

A.3. Identify implementation objectives necessary to respond to

new information or considerations.

A.4. Identify primary travelers.

A.5. Develop purpose and need based on A.2-A.3 and designation

criteria contained in CFRs.

B. Issue and planning criteria development.

B.1. Develop planning issues associated with A.2-A.4.

Appendix W Travel Management Planning February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1825

B.1.1. Develop indicators in response to planning issues identified

in B.1.

B.1.2. Develop route selection criteria (or standards) associated

with B.1.1.

B.1.3. Identify and address data gaps.

C. Public comment on above and existing route inventory.

D. Evaluate and Refine.

D.1. Evaluate route selection criteria using existing routes as a test

case.

D.1.1. Route selection criteria should provide meaningful insight

into individual route parameters/impacts and demonstrate variation

in the magnitude of route impact.

D.1.2. Route selection criteria should give a picture of the

magnitude of the cumulative impact or overall network impact.

D.1.3. Route selection criteria should provide for adaptive

responses and analysis parameters for future travel actions such as,

adding roads or trails, or actions to mitigate new issues.

D.2. Present route selection criteria and results, as well as general

alternative themes, to cooperators and the public.

D.3. Refine route selection criteria and general alternative themes.

E. Impact analysis on No Action Alternative and resource conservation alternatives.

E.1. Route selection criteria applied to No Action Alternative

(Alternative A - all routes designated open) and resource

conservation alternative (Alternative B - All routes that do not meet

selection criteria will be closed).

E.2. Develop impact analysis for alternatives A and B.

E.2.1. Do these alternatives meet the purpose and need?

E.2.2. Drop (considered but not analyzed in detail) alternatives that

do not meet the purpose and need.

E.3. Develop and identify standardized mitigation measures

(specific to selection criteria) to address impacts associated with

routes not meeting criteria.

F. Develop Alternative C (All routes that do not meet route selection criteria are mitigated

open.) based on step E.3

G. Develop impact analysis for Alternative C.

H. 30-day review for cooperators and interested public, and 5-day workshops to provide input.

February 2013 Appendix W Travel Management Planning
1826 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

I. Develop Preferred Alternative (D)

J. Develop impact analysis for Alternative D.

K. Issue draft TMP and 30-day comment period for the public.

L. Respond to public comments.

M. Issue final and FONSI Decision Record.

Deferred Areas

The following TMPs are identified above as a ‘deferred area’ for travel planning, meaning

planning will be conducted 9 to 19 years after the completion of the RMP process. The

accompanying schedule assumes:

● Existing staffing in addition to adequate staffing to address ID Team needs, as well as staffing

to collect additional inventory information.

● Limited scope creep of TMP, public involvement, and/or NEPA process.

● Full completion of the higher priority TMPs.

10. Crooks TMP: years twelve to thirteen inventory (after signing of ROD), years thirteen to

fourteen planning, year fourteen implementation

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

Goals: LR 6, LR 7, LR 8, LR 9, LR 11, LR 12, SD 1-5, and SD 16

Objectives: LR 6.1, LR 7.1, LR 8.1, LR 9.1, LR 12.1-12.3, SD 1.1-5.6, and SD

16.1-16.3

Management Actions: 6044

Primary Travelers

Hunters (fall, winter, spring), wood cutters, antler hunters, livestock grazing

permitee(s), mining operators, oil and gas developers, Continental Divide National

Scenic Trail hikers, and private land owners.

11. Copper Mountain WSA TMP: years fourteen to fifteen (after signing of ROD) inventory,

years fifteen to sixteen planning, year sixteen implementation

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

Goals: LR 6, LR 7, LR 8, LR 11, LR 12, LR 13, and SD 6

Objectives: LR 6.1, LR 7.1-7.3, LR 12.1-12.3, LR 13.1-13.4, SD 6.1, and SD 6.2

Management Actions: 6039 and 7022

Primary Travelers

Hunters and livestock grazing permittee(s).

11. Bridger TMP: years fourteen to fifteen (after signing of ROD) inventory, years fifteen to

sixteen planning, year sixteen implementation

Appendix W Travel Management Planning February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1827

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

Goals: LR 6, LR 7, LR 8, LR 9, LR 11, and LR 12

Objectives: LR 6.1, LR 7.1, LR 8.1, LR 9.1, and LR 12.1-12.3

Management Actions: 6044

Primary Travelers

Hunters (fall, winter, spring), antler hunters, livestock grazing permittee(s), mining

operators, oil and gas developers, and private land owners.

12. Rattlesnake Hills TMP: years sixteen to seventeen inventory (after signing of ROD), years

seventeen to eighteen planning, year eighteen implementation

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

Goals: LR 6, LR 7, LR 8, LR 9, LR 11, and LR 12

Objectives: LR 6.1, LR 7.1, LR 8,1, LR 9.1, and LR 12.1-12.3

Management Actions: 6044

Primary Travelers

Hunters (fall, winter, spring), wood cutters, antler hunters, livestock grazing

permittee(s), mining operators, oil and gas developers, and private land owners.

13. Moneta TMP: years eighteen to nineteen inventory (after signing of ROD), years nineteen to

twenty planning, year twenty-one implementation

RMP goals, objectives, and decisions that will influence travel.

Goals: LR 6, LR 7, LR 8, LR 9 LR 11, and LR 12

Objectives: LR 6.1, LR 7.1, LR 8,1, LR 9.1, and LR 12.1-12.3

Management Actions: 6044

Primary Travelers

Hunters (fall, winter, spring), livestock grazing permittee(s), mining operators, oil

and gas developers, and private land owners.

Strategy and Task Schedule

The strategy and task schedule for these areas will be the same as that identified for the priority

deferred areas.

February 2013 Appendix W Travel Management Planning
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1829

Appendix X. Comment Analysis

X.1. Introduction

On September 9, 2011, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published the Notice of

Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register announcing the release of the Draft Resource

Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Lander Field Office

planning area. The NOA initiated the 90-day public comment period. At the request of the

public and cooperating agencies, the BLM extended the comment period by 45 days, for a total

comment period of 135 days. The public comment period ended on January 20, 2012. During

the public comment period, the BLM hosted three commenting workshops in September 2011

and five public meetings in October 2011 in towns and cities throughout the planning area. The

commenting workshops informed readers how to navigate the Draft RMP and EIS, and how to

prepare and submit substantive comments. At the October public meetings, the BLM gathered

public comments on the Draft RMP and EIS, and agency representatives were available at the

meetings to answer questions from the public.

During the public comment period, the BLM received 262 unique comment documents and

more than 25,000 form letters. This report summarizes the full range of issues and concerns as

submitted by the public during the comment period. The submitted comments and summaries

presented in this report do not necessarily represent the sentiments of the public as a whole.

However, this summary does attempt to provide fair representation of the wide range of views

submitted during the public comment period. In consideration of these views, it is important for

the public and decision makers to understand that this process does not attempt to treat input as if

it were a vote. Instead, comment analysis is a process that allows the BLM to review and consider

received comments, develop appropriate responses, revise the Draft RMP and EIS in response to

comments, and support the BLM’s decision-making process.

The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

● Comment Analysis Process – Describes how the BLM received, recorded, and categorized

comment documents and comments.

● Commenter Demographics – Presents demographic information associated with submitted

comment documents, including geography and affiliation of commenters.

● Analysis of Comments – Provides a breakdown of the number of comments received by

issue category, a summary of comments received, and a summary of the BLM’s response to

comments received.

This report refers to two attachments which are available on the RMP project website

(http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/lander.html):

● Attachment A: Commenter Index – Includes instructions on how to use the tables in

Attachment A and Attachment B. It also includes an index listing the names of all commenters

and their associated comment document number.

● Attachment B: Individual Comments and Index to Summary Comments and Summary

Responses – Includes all substantive public comments received during the public comment

period along with an index to help users find their associated summary comments and

response.

February 2013 Appendix X Comment Analysis
1830 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

X.2. Comment Analysis Process

The BLM used a systematic process to compile, categorize, and evaluate written comments from

individuals, federal and state agencies, tribal governments, elected representatives, and other

organizations on the Draft RMP and EIS to identify substantive issues for review and response by

BLM decision-makers. The comment analysis process provides a methodical approach for the

BLM to revise text in the Draft RMP and EIS based on comments provided during the public

comment period. Additionally, through the comment analysis process, the BLM supplemented

the project mailing list, and compiled demographic information on the geographic distribution

of commenters.

Public comment documents include hardcopy comments received at the public meetings, and

electronic or written comment documents postmarked within the 135-day public comment period.

Methods of comment document submittal included U.S. mail, e-mail, fax, and public meetings.

All individuals attending public meetings were encouraged to submit comments in writing.

The entire written submission from a commenter (e.g., full letter or e-mail) is referred to as a

"public comment document"; an individual and identifiable substantive expression of interest

or issue statement included in a public comment document is referred to as a "comment." For

example, a letter (i.e., public comment document) received within the public comment period

might have included one or more separate comments. ”Commenter” refers to the individual or

organization who submitted the comment document.

X.2.1. Analysis Process

The BLM comment analysis team used the software program CommentWorks®, an online

comment tracking and analysis platform, to catalogue, number, review, categorize, and respond to

public comments on the Draft RMP and EIS.

Upon receipt of a public comment document, a member of the comment analysis team logged

the comment document into a comment tracking spreadsheet, assigned the document a unique

identifier (e.g., Document 10001), and converted the comment document to a searchable electronic

(i.e., PDF) document. The analysis team then added all pertinent commenter information (e.g.,

name, affiliation, address, and type of comment document) into CommentWorks® and uploaded

the electronic documents to the system.

The first step in the analysis process was to identify individual substantive comments within a

public comment document. The comment analysis team identified each substantive comment

based on guidance in the BLM National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Handbook

(H-1790-1). Substantive comments are those that do one or more of the following:

● Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the RMP and EIS

● Question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of, methodology for, or assumptions used for

the environmental analysis

● Present new information relevant to the analysis

● Present reasonable alternatives other than those analyzed in the RMP and EIS

● Cause changes or revisions in one or more of the alternatives

Comments not considered substantive included the following:

● Comments in favor of or against the Proposed Action or alternatives without reasoning that

meet the substantive comment criteria listed above

Appendix X Comment Analysis

Comment Analysis Process February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1831

● Comments that only agree or disagree with BLM policy or resource decisions without

justification or supporting data that meet the substantive criteria listed above

● Comments that do not pertain to the planning area or scope of the RMP and EIS

● Comments that take the form of vague, open-ended questions

Based on the comments respondents received and on legal guidance, the analysis team established

an issue coding structure for all substantive comments within CommentWorks® and used the

coding structure to bracket and sort comments into logical groups or issue categories (e.g., air

quality, cumulative impacts, and cultural resources). Table X.1, “ Issue Categories” (p. 1831) lists

all issue categories identified for the Draft RMP and EIS.

Table X.1. Issue Categories

Issue Categories

Air Resources Invasive Species Salable Minerals

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Lands and Realty Socioeconomic

Climate Change Laws, Regulations, Guidance, Process Soil

Congressionally Designated Trails Livestock Grazing Management Special Status Species

Cultural Resources Leasable Minerals – Geothermal Trails and Travel Management

Cumulative Impacts Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas Vegetation

Editorial, Readability, and Data Issues Leasable Minerals – Oil Shale Visual Resource Management

Environmental Justice Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable

Minerals

Water

Extension and Hard Copy Request Locatable Minerals Wild and Scenic Rivers

Fire and Fuels Management Recreation Wild Horses

Fish Renewable Energy Wilderness Characteristics

Greater Sage-Grouse Rights-of-Way and Corridors Wilderness Study Areas

Health and Safety Riparian-Wetland Wildlife

The BLM Interdisciplinary Team reviewed individual comments after the comments were

assigned to an issue category, and provided direction to develop a response. The comment

analysis team then used the individual comments and Interdisciplinary Team direction to analyze,

group, and summarize comments, and to develop responses to the summary comments.

When reviewing comments, the analysis team looked not only for each action or change requested

by the public, but also for any supporting information to capture the comment and its context in

its entirety. In doing so, paragraphs within a comment document might have been divided into

several comments because the paragraphs contained more than one comment; conversely, multiple

sections of a comment document might have been combined to form one coherent comment.

It is important to note that during the process of identifying individual comments and concerns, the

BLM treated all comments equally. The BLM did not weight comments based on organizational

affiliation or status of commenters, and the number of duplicate comments did not increase the

priority or merit of one comment over another. The process was not one of "counting votes,"

and the BLM did not make any effort to tabulate the exact number of people for or against any

given aspect of the Draft RMP and EIS. Rather, the BLM focused on an understanding of the

content of a comment, how it related to the Draft RMP and EIS, and appropriate responses and

revisions to the Draft RMP and EIS.

X.3. Commenter Demographics

This section summarizes commenter demographics based on information provided in comment

documents. Demographic analysis allows the BLM to form an overall picture of issues, and a

February 2013

Appendix X Comment Analysis

Commenter Demographics
1832 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

better understanding of who is submitting comments, the geographic distribution of commenters,

their affiliations, and the format of the public comment documents.

X.3.1. Geographic Representation

The BLM tracked the geographic representation for each comment document that included such

information. Table X.2, “Number of Commenters by Geographic Location” (p. 1832) identifies

the number of comment documents received from individual geographic locations (excluding

form letters). Figure X.1, “Number of Comment Documents by Geography” (p. 1833) depicts

the geographic distribution of comment documents received from within the planning area, from

outside the planning area but within the State of Wyoming, and from outside Wyoming. The BLM

received the most comment documents from commenters within the planning area.

Table X.2. Number of Commenters by Geographic Location

State City Number of Commenters

Alaska Anchorage 2

Arizona Apache Junction 1

California Healdsburg 1

California Los Angeles 1

California Oroville 1

California Santa Rosa 1

California Santa Ynez 1

California West Hollywood 1

Colorado Colorado Springs 1

Colorado Denver 8

Colorado Fort Collins 1

Colorado Golden 1

Colorado Lakewood 1

Colorado LaSalle 1

Colorado Loveland 1

District of Columbia Washington 1

Florida Miami 2

Iowa Monticello 1

Idaho Idaho City 1

Idaho McCall 1

Illinois Bartelso 1

Illinois Chicago 1

Massachusetts Millville 1

Massachusetts Tewksbury 1

Maryland Baltimore 2

Maryland Chevy Chase 1

Maine Fredericton 1

Missouri Independence 2

Montana Helena 1

Montana Missoula 1

New Mexico Albuquerque 3

New Mexico Deming 1

Nevada Las Vegas 1

New York Canadaigua 2

Ohio Cutler 1

Ohio Willoughby 1

Oklahoma Oklahoma City 1

Appendix X Comment Analysis

Geographic Representation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1833

State City Number of Commenters

Oregon Klamath Falls 1

Pennsylvania Pottstown 1

Tennessee Knoxville 1

Texas Austin 1

Texas Dallas 1

Texas Midland 1

Utah Logan City 1

Utah Salt Lake City 1

Virginia Arlington 1

Washington Cameno Island 1

Washington Deer Park 1

Washington Monroe 1

Wisconsin Delafield 1

Wisconsin Madison 1

Wisconsin Sturgeon Bay 1

Wyoming Alcova 1

Wyoming Atlantic City 1

Wyoming Bairoil 2

Wyoming Basin 1

Wyoming Casper 2

Wyoming Cheyenne 13

Wyoming Cody 4

Wyoming Dubois 8

Wyoming Green River 1

Wyoming Jackson 1

Wyoming Jeffrey City 2

Wyoming Lander 62

Wyoming Laramie 8

Wyoming Moose 1

Wyoming Moran 1

Wyoming Pinedale 2

Wyoming Powell 2

Wyoming Rawlins 4

Wyoming Reliance 1

Wyoming Riverton 11

Wyoming Sheridan 1

Wyoming Shoshoni 2

Wyoming Thermopolis 1

Wyoming - 1

Total 199

Note: Comments received through e-mail that did not include mailing addresses or geographic

representation accounted for 63 submissions.

Note: Form letters were counted once based on the geographic location of the originating entity for the master

form letter.

February 2013

Appendix X Comment Analysis

Geographic Representation
1834 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Note: Comments received through e-mail that did not include mailing addresses or geographic

representation accounted for 63 submissions.

Note: Form letters were counted once based on the geographic location of the originating entity for the master

form letter.

Figure X.1. Number of Comment Documents by Geography

X.3.2. Organizational Affiliation

The BLM received comments from a range of entities, as listed in Table X.3, “Number of

Comment Documents by Affiliation (excluding form letters)” (p. 1834) and shown on Figure X.1,

“Number of Comment Documents by Geography” (p. 1833). The BLM affiliated comment

documents with a government or non-governmental organization if the comment document was

received on official letterhead or was received through an official agency or organization e-mail

address. The BLM classified all other comment documents as unaffiliated individuals. The BLM

received the most comment documents from unaffiliated individuals.

Table X.3. Number of Comment Documents by Affiliation (excluding form letters)

Affiliation Number of Public Response Documents

Federal Agency 6

State Agency 13

Local Government 6

Non-Governmental Organization 40

Private Industry 36

Unaffiliated Individual 161

Total 262

Note: Form letters were counted once based on the geographic location of the originating entity for the master form letter.

Appendix X Comment Analysis

Organizational Affiliation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1835

Note: Form letters were counted once based on the geographic location of the originating entity for the master

form letter.

Figure X.2. Number of Comment Documents by Affiliation

X.3.3. Public Comment Document Method of Delivery

The BLM received comment documents through a variety of delivery methods, as listed in

Table X.4, “Number of Public Comment Documents by Method of Delivery” (p. 1835). The

BLM received the most comment documents through e-mail (190) and U.S. Mail (69).

Table X.4. Number of Public Comment Documents by Method of Delivery

Method of Delivery Number

E-mail 190

U.S. Mail 69

Fax 3

Total 262

X.3.4. Form Letters

The BLM received approximately 25,000 form letters. Form letters are standardized and

duplicated letters that contain the same text or portions of text and comments. The BLM reviewed

the form letters and extracted and analyzed any comments unique and supplemental to the form

letter; however, the BLM considered comments with the same text as one comment. The BLM

designated the first form letter from each originating entity as the “master” comment document

and reviewed each subsequent form letter to ensure the content was identical to the master

comment document. The BLM received form letters from the Greater Yellowstone Coalition,

February 2013

Appendix X Comment Analysis

Public Comment Document Method of Delivery
1836 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Sierra Club, and two unknown entities, for a total of four master comment documents. The

BLM received seven form letters via U.S. mail; all other form letters arrived via e-mail. When

form letters included additional text, the BLM reviewed and processed them if they contained

substantive individual comments.

X.4. Analysis of Comments

The 262 public comment documents contained substantive and non-substantive comments.

Representative non-substantive comments included requests to be added to the project mailing

list, requests for a copy of the Draft RMP and EIS, personal preference or opinion, unsupported

comments and questions, and comments outside the scope of the Draft RMP and EIS.

In accordance with the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1), the BLM analyzed and responded to

comments on the Lander Draft RMP and EIS if they were substantive and related to inadequacies

or inaccuracies in the analysis or methodologies used; identified new impacts or recommended

reasonable new alternatives or mitigation measures; or involved substantive disagreements on

interpretations of significance. (See 40 Code of Federal Regulation 1502.19, 1503.3, 1503.4,

1506.6, and 516 DM 4.17). BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) identifies the following comment

category examples and appropriate responses:

Substantive Comments

● Question, with a reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the EIS. Factual

corrections should be made in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS in response to comments that

identify inaccuracies or discrepancies in factual information, data, or analysis.

● Question, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of environmental analysis as presented.

Comments that express a professional disagreement with the conclusions of the analysis

or assert that the analysis is inadequate might or might not lead to changes in the EIS.

Interpretations of analyses should be based on professional expertise. Where there is

disagreement within a professional discipline, a careful review of the various interpretations

is warranted. In some cases, public comments might necessitate an evaluation of analytical

conclusions. If, after reevaluation, the manager responsible for preparing the EIS does not

think a change is warranted, the response should provide the rationale for that conclusion.

● Identify New Impacts, Alternatives, or Mitigation Measures. If public comments on

a Draft RMP and EIS identify impacts, alternatives, or mitigation measures that were not

addressed in the draft, the manager responsible for preparing the RMP and EIS should

determine if they warrant further consideration. If they do, that manager must determine

whether the new impacts, new alternatives, or new mitigation measures should be analyzed

in either the Proposed RMP and Final EIS, a supplement to the Draft RMP and EIS, or a

completely revised and recirculated Draft RMP and EIS.

● Disagree with Significance Determinations. Comments might directly or indirectly question

determinations regarding the significance or severity of impacts. A reevaluation of these

determinations could be warranted and might lead to changes in the Proposed RMP and Final

EIS. If, after reevaluation, the manager responsible for preparing the EIS does not think a

change is warranted, the response should provide the rationale for that conclusion.

Non-Substantive Comments

● Express Personal Preferences. Comments that express personal preferences or opinions on

the proposal do not require further agency action. They are summarized whenever possible

and brought to the attention of the manager responsible for preparing the RMP and EIS.

Appendix X Comment Analysis

Analysis of Comments February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1837

Although personal preferences and opinions might influence the final selection of the agency's

preferred action, they generally will not affect the analysis.

● Other. In addition to the five categories from the NEPA Handbook described above, the BLM

added a sixth category named “other” which includes requests for copies of the Draft RMP

and EIS, requests to be added to the project mailing list, and comments outside the scope of

the RMP and EIS. These comments are considered non-substantive and do not require further

agency action.

X.4.1. Comment Submittals by Issue Category

Within the 262 received comment documents, the BLM identified 1,685 individual substantive

comments covering a broad range of issue categories. The greatest number of substantive

comments was associated with livestock grazing management (193), oil and gas (156), and

greater sage-grouse (105). Attachment A includes an index for users to identify their comment

documents, and Attachment B includes all individual substantive comments and an index for

users to identify the corresponding BLM summary comments and responses (available on the

Lander RMP project website http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/lander.html).

Table X.5, “Number of Comments per Issue Category” (p. 1837) and Figure X.3, “Number of

Individual Comments by Issue Category” (p. 1838) identify the number of comments submitted

by issue category.

Table X.5. Number of Comments per Issue Category

Issue Category Number of Comments Per Issue Category

Air Resources 77

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 95

Climate Change 6

Congressionally Designated Trails 73

Cultural Resources 30

Cumulative Impacts 16

Editorial, Readability, and Data Issues 80

Environmental Justice 1

Extension and Hard Copy Request 14

Fire and Fuels Management 8

Fish 8

Greater Sage-Grouse 105

Health and Safety 3

Invasive Species 11

Lands and Realty 18

Laws, Regulations, Guidance, Process 98

Leasable Minerals – Geothermal 4

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas 156

Leasable Minerals – Oil Shale 4

Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals 16

Livestock Grazing Management 193

Locatable Minerals 23

Recreation 15

Renewable Energy 17

Rights-of-Way and Corridors 50

Riparian-Wetland 19

Salable Minerals 3

Socioeconomic 62

February 2013

Appendix X Comment Analysis

Comment Submittals by Issue Category
1838 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue Category Number of Comments Per Issue Category

Soil 62

Special Status Species 68

Trails and Travel Management 17

Vegetation 26

Visual Resource Management 31

Water 79

Wild and Scenic Rivers 16

Wild Horses 66

Wilderness Characteristics 22

Wilderness Study Areas 12

Wildlife 81

Total 1,685

Note: Duplicative comments in form letters were only counted once.

Appendix X Comment Analysis

Comment Submittals by Issue Category February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1839

Note: Duplicative comments in form letters were only counted once.

Figure X.3. Number of Individual Comments by Issue Category

February 2013

Appendix X Comment Analysis

Comment Submittals by Issue Category
1840 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

X.4.2. Substantive Comment Summary and Response

To provide a user-friendly method of understanding the broad themes and topics of

concern expressed in the substantive comments, the BLM grouped individual comments

with similar topics and concerns and developed 63 summary comments and responses.

Table X.6, “Comment and Response Summaries” (p. 1841) lists the 63 summary comments

and responses generally organized by BLM resource program and other appropriate issue

categories (e.g., extension and hard copy requests), as described in Table X.1, “ Issue

Categories” (p. 1831). The summary numbers in Table X.6, “Comment and Response

Summaries” (p. 1841) can be used to track the summary comment and response to the

individual comments presented in Attachment B (available on the Lander RMP project website

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/lander.html).

Appendix X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1841

Table X.6. Comment and Response Summaries

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Air Quality 2001-1 Commenters stated that there are various instances of

inadequate, inaccurate, or insufficient information and/or

data throughout the air quality impact analysis. Specifically,

commenters asserted that use of data from only four air

monitoring stations in the planning area and the limited amount

of available air quality data from sources in and adjacent to the

planning area provided inadequate data for use in completing an

accurate analysis.

Commenters requested the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

provide additional information, including (1) the methods and

criteria used in analyzing air quality in the planning area, (2)

justification of the ability of monitoring sites to adequately

characterize air quality in the planning area, and (3) disclosure

of the associated costs of implementing air quality mitigation.

Additionally, commenters offered technical corrections to

various statements made in the air quality analysis, requested

inclusion of Class 1 areas in and adjacent to the planning

area, requested data regarding uranium mining, and suggested

addressing carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration.

The BLM updated the air quality sections in the Proposed

RMP and Final EIS, Appendix F (p. 1491), and Appendix

U (p. 1651) to respond to comments, as appropriate. Updates

include, but are not limited to, the following: technical data

and references were corrected associated with the most recent

National Emissions Inventory, National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS), and ozone exceedances, standards,

and chemistry. Appendix F (p. 1491) addresses ambient air

monitoring commitments in the planning area.

Project proponents are responsible for incurring the costs

associated with their proposed actions. Every management

action is unique, and might or might not have requirements

or mitigation measures developed to protect resources. Any

such measures would be within the purview of existing

rules and regulations and within the BLM’s authority in

accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management

Act (FLPMA). Additionally, without knowing the specifics of

future management actions, the BLM cannot estimate or assign

a cost to such actions.

The BLM incorporated Class I and II areas within 40 miles of

the planning area in Appendix F (p. 1491), and updated the

rights-of-way (ROW) sections to include CO2 sequestration

management. The BLM does not have accurate data for

emissions associated with uranium open-pit mining.

Air Quality 2001-2 Commenters questioned the authority of the BLM to regulate air

quality and require air quality mitigation measures in the region,

and the State of Wyoming overall. Commenters requested

additional references to applicable air quality laws and policies

(specifically the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding [MOU]

between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the

U.S, Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture), and that management demonstrate compliance

with Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

regulations and other applicable regulations. Specifically,

commenters requested additional text clarifying the scope of

BLM’s authority in regulating air quality and that the Lander

The BLM has air resource management obligations and

responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), FLPMA, and the Clean Air Act (CAA) and cannot

authorize any action that would not comply with any state or

federal regulation. Specifically, FLPMA requires in Section

202 [43 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1712 (c)(8)]: compliance

with applicable pollution control laws, including state and

Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or

implementation plans.

The BLM is not attempting to regulate air quality or to

supersede Wyoming DEQ’s authority. The BLM goals and

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1842 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

RMP be consistent with conditions established in the 2011

MOU.

Additionally, commenters requested the BLM include additional

details outlining how stated goals and objectives for air quality

management in the planning area will be accomplished,

specifically regarding future oil and gas developments and

associated impacts to air quality.

objectives were developed as required by the NEPA process

for each resource identified in scoping, and were agreed to in

a cooperating agency process that included Wyoming DEQ

and EPA. The goals identified by the BLM do not interfere

with Wyoming DEQ’s authority and indicate that the BLM will

comply with state regulations.

The BLM believes the Proposed RMP and Final EIS are

consistent with the 2011 MOU, and the BLM will continue to

abide by the processes and recommendations outlined in the

MOU. The decision to model a particular project or geographic

area is made case by case and depends on availability of input

data, geographic and meteorological conditions, current state

of air quality, and proximity of sensitive air sheds or receptors.

The BLM has authority to require Best Management Practices

(BMPs), Conditions of Approval (COAs), or other measures

determined in cooperation with other federal land management

and regulatory agencies (including EPA and Wyoming DEQ),

if management actions have the potential to adversely or

substantially impact any resource area, including air resources.

BMPs, mitigation measures, and COAs are project-specific and

will be identified in subsequent NEPA documents addressing

such projects.

The Lander Air Management Plan in Appendix

F (p. 1491) includes requirements for emissions inventories,

monitoring, and modeling. Project-specific requirements

will be determined during the development of an EIS and

subsequent Record of Decision (ROD) for major oil and gas

projects.

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1843

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Areas of Critical

Environmental

Concern

2002-1 Commenters questioned if the existing and newly proposed

Areas of Environmental Concern (ACECs) meet the relevance

and importance criteria requirements as stated in 43 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) 1610.7-2 and the BLM Manual

1613, and whether these areas require special management

to (1) protect the area and prevent irreparable damage to

resources or natural systems and (2) adequately protect these

areas from energy developments through the issuance of

No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulations. In some cases,

commenters suggested improvements to ACEC designations

and provided detailed reasoning to support their position for

modifications. Specifically, commenters requested that the BLM

provide further explanation regarding designation of the Twin

Creek ACEC and the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater

Sage-Grouse Reference and Education Area.

Other commenters stated the BLM did not provide enough

detail in the ACEC analysis to support designation, and made

several specific requests that the BLM improve and/or disclose

ACEC data and improve the analysis for ACECs, including

(1) disclosure of completed ACEC evaluation forms, (2) an

opportunity to cooperate and/or coordinate with the BLM in

completing the ACEC evaluations, (3) detailed descriptions of

allowable activities in ACECs, (4) correction of discrepancies

in ACEC acreage, and (5) improved ACEC maps, including

displaying National Historic Trail (NHT) features on ACEC

maps.

The BLM analyzed a range of prescriptions for ACEC

management, including allowable uses and activities in each

ACEC as described in Chapters 2 and 4. The ACEC Report

documents the evaluation process for existing and newly

proposed ACECs. The report outlines how each proposed

ACEC meets or does not meet the relevance and importance

criteria. The report is available on the BLM website at:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/

planning/rmps/lander.Par.74315.File.dat/ACEC.pdf.

While the overall ACEC designations in the Proposed Resource

Management Plan (RMP) and Final EIS are the same as in the

Draft RMP and EIS, management of some of the ACECs has

been altered to address comments. In order to better protect

resource values, including greater sage-grouse, the BLM is

recommending withdrawal of 306,360 acres of land in the

Hudson to Atlantic City, including the Twin Creek ACEC. The

BLM is no longer designating the Government Draw/Upper

Sweetwater Sage-Grouse Reference and Education Area which

had previously encompassed the Twin Creek ACEC because

the revised management approach provides adequate protection

for resources. In the case of greater sage-grouse, the area will

support ongoing and future research that will benefit greater

sage-grouse and industry statewide.

The BLM updated the Proposed RMP and Final EIS to include

additional citations to the ACEC report and other sources as

appropriate to support the determinations, and made various

editorial changes and provided clarifying text as needed. The

BLM also reviewed existing Geographic Information System

(GIS) data and mapping products for ACEC locations, and

made changes where appropriate based on comments received.

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1844 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Climate Change 2003-1 Commenters expressed concern that although impacts from

climate change are described in the document, the BLM does

not provide management actions to address those impacts. Some

commenters insisted the BLM incorporate more climate change

planning in the RMP and EIS. Other commenters recommended

addressing additional resources affected by or that could affect

climate change, such as the role of BLM-authorized activities in

climate change and specifically the use of uranium to generate

electricity.

The BLM’s primary approach to address impacts from climate

change is to improve range conditions in accordance with the

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands by managing

livestock grazing and vegetation treatments. The BLM believes

the Proposed RMP is proactive in conserving wildlife habitat

so that wildlife populations can survive in a changing climate.

The authorized activities that could contribute to climate

change are identified and addressed in the Proposed RMP and

Final EIS. However, addressing the use of uranium to generate

electricity is beyond the scope of the RMP.

Congressionally

Designated Trails

2004-1 Commenters indicated general concern regarding the proposed

uses and protection of Congressionally Designated Trails in the

planning area. In addition, commenters stated impacts from

trail management and other development, such as uranium

development, were not fully assessed. Specific concerns

included the limitations of surface-disturbing activities within

5 miles of a Congressionally Designated Trail, a lack of

adequate justification for Congressionally Designated Trails

protection, and a need for the BLM to incorporate direction

contained in the 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic

Trail Comprehensive Plan. Commenters provided suggested

language and actions for the BLM to incorporate in its

management of the Congressionally Designated Trails.

Commenters also identified a number of technical edits related

to the Congressionally Designated Trails analysis, including

requests to use alternative language, corrections to technical

statements and/or terms, requests to define terms, clarification

of language, and corrections to GIS maps depicting the

Congressionally Designated Trails.

The BLM has updated the Proposed RMP and Final EIS

to reflect commenter recommendations regarding uses of

and protections offered to Congressionally Designated

Trails, including limitations on surface-disturbing activities

within 5 miles of Congressionally Designated Trails, use of

alternative language, corrections to technical statements and/or

terms, requests to define terms, clarification of language,

and corrections to GIS maps depicting the Congressionally

Designated Trails. The BLM has reviewed and incorporated

the tenets of the 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

Comprehensive Plan into the Proposed RMP and Final EIS.

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1845

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Cultural Resources 2005-1 Commenters requested the BLM include additional analysis

and data regarding impacts to cultural resources. Specifically,

commenters indicated the BLM should disclose general

information regarding the location of cultural sites, so livestock

grazing permittees and oil and gas operations would know the

locations where the described restrictions will be enforced.

Commenters requested that the BLM acknowledge that oil

and gas development has led to beneficial impacts on cultural

resources through site-specific assessments required by the

BLM. Commenters suggested other topics that the BLM should

consider addressing in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS, such

as protecting and managing livestock grazing as a traditional

use eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic

Places, and documenting the importance of using the historic

trails for historic reenactments to The Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints.

Commenters also requested clarification on the use of terms, the

correction of citations, and the location of the discussions of

cultural and historic properties.

The BLM will work with oil and gas companies to

accommodate development plans in Designated Development

Areas (DDAs) where cultural sites are present, and work with

grazing permittees regarding proposed range infrastructure

projects to avoid adversely impacting cultural sites.

Livestock grazing as a use is not covered under the National

Historic Preservation Act, which directs federal agencies to

identify, evaluate, and assess effects to historic properties that

are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic

Places. Properties associated with livestock grazing can be

found eligible for National Register listing, but livestock

grazing as a use cannot be considered as a historic property.

The BLM added text to Chapter 4 recognizing knowledge can

be gained from recordation and data recovery related to oil

and gas development. However, this information is gathered

to reduce adverse effects to cultural resources, and the overall

effect from disturbance of cultural resources is still adverse

rather than beneficial. The BLM also added text to Chapter 3

acknowledging the importance of the NHTs to The Church of

Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The BLM reviewed the document and made edits as necessary

to clarify language and correct citations.

Cultural Resources 2005-2 Commenters requested that the BLM add more information

regarding oil and gas operator cooperation with the BLM and

other stakeholders to reduce potential visual impacts to cultural

resources. Multiple commenters indicated that the BLM has

not provided justification for requiring special management or

protection for regionally significant historic trails and early

highways, and justification for buffer distances for cultural

sites and historic trails. A commenter recommended that

several management actions under Alternative B that increase

protections for cultural resources be added to Alternative D. In

addition, a commenter questioned how the BLM would manage

the proposed Heritage Tourism and Recreation Management

Corridor, and another commenter expressed concern about the

extent of BLM involvement in identifying sites for consideration

for National Register listing that occur on state or private land.

The BLM added text to Chapter 4 to reflect agreements

where special guidelines to reduce visual impacts on cultural

resources have been incorporated into field-wide operations.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act directs

federal agencies to identify, evaluate, and assess effects of its

undertakings on historic properties that are eligible for listing

on the National Register of Historic Places. The BLM and

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) have found all

cultural sites, NHTs, and Regionally Significant Historic Trails

and Early Highways identified in the Draft RMP and EIS

eligible for nomination to the National Register. All of the

NHTs and early highways have segments that are considered

“contributing” to their National Register qualities and portions

that are considered “non-contributing.” The BLM is required

to protect the eligibility of the cultural sites, NHTs, and

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1846 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Regionally Significant Historic Trails and Early Highways,

and has prescribed buffers to protect the important values of

these resources.

The BLM determined the protections prescribed under the

Proposed RMP (Alternative D) were adequate to protect

cultural sites in the planning area. Many of the protections

under Alternative B are provided in other management actions

(e.g., Special Designations) under the Proposed RMP. Chapter

2 describes the management prescriptions in detail.

The BLM’s Cultural Resources 8100 Manual provides

guidance for the BLM’s responsibilities for cultural resources

on non-federal lands. The extent of the BLM's responsibility

for identifying and protecting non-federal cultural resources is

limited by the degree to which BLM decisions determine or

control the location of activities on non-federal lands that could

affect cultural resources (see BLM Manual Section 8140.O6D).

Identification and/or mitigation of adverse effects may be

required as a condition of a lease, permit, or license issued by

the BLM, whether federal or non-federal lands are involved.

Cumulative

Impacts

2006-1 Commenters recommended that the BLM further analyze

cumulative impacts regarding multiple resources, resource

uses, special designations, and socioeconomic conditions.

Specifically, commenters requested a higher degree of analysis

of cumulative impacts to NHTs, greater sage-grouse, vegetation

communities, agriculture, and oil, gas, minerals, and timber

industries. Commenters also indicated a need for different

models to assess cumulative socioeconomic impacts on the

public in the planning area and offered technical corrections for

information included in the analysis.

Overall, the BLM determined the current cumulative

impacts analysis is appropriate and adequately informs the

decision-making process. The BLM revised the cumulative

impacts section to update citations related to statewide air

emission inventory and the Wyoming Governor’s Greater

Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection Executive Order 2011-5,

and update information and/or provide clarifications, as

appropriate. Regarding the need to address socioeconomic

impacts, the BLM has adopted the Impact Analysis for

Planning Model (IMPLAN) analysis for use in its planning

activities; while other models are available, IMPLAN provides

an appropriate tool for comparing alternatives.

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1847

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Editorial,

Readability, and

Data Issues

2007-1 Commenters recommended a number of editorial revisions

in the Draft RMP and EIS including spelling and grammar

corrections. Commenters also recommended additions and

revisions to the glossary, incorporating updated guidance,

adding specific terminology or clarifying language, and

improving readability.

Commenters pointed to several inaccuracies and inconsistencies

in numbers and data as presented in the Draft RMP and EIS

and requested that the BLM ensure that tables and figures

are verified by GIS datasets; develop a detailed reference

list that includes all GIS layers used; correct discrepancies in

acreage; and incorporate pertinent spatial datasets. In addition,

a commenter requested that the BLM provide a detailed list of

sources for all GIS data layers referenced in the text.

The BLM evaluated all requests regarding readability, editorial

suggestions, reference citations, and suggested additions and

corrections, and revised the document, as appropriate. In

addition, the BLM reviewed GIS data, methods, and mapping

products and revised and updated shapefiles, tables, acreage,

and maps, as appropriate. GIS data cited in the RMP includes

hundreds of GIS files (e.g., shapefiles, raster datasets, and

geodatabase feature classes), which provide all data and

map sources referenced in the EIS. Additional information

about GIS calculations presented in the EIS is provided in the

Administrative Record. Revisions made in the Proposed RMP

and Final EIS are identified by shaded text.

Environmental

Justice

2008-1 The commenter asserted that the RMP does not adequately

analyze environmental justice because it fails to measure

impacts to individual communities.

The BLM believes the analysis in the RMP and EIS

adequately addresses environmental justice issues, including

minority or low-income communities or populations as

defined in Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations (February 11, 1994), and guidance

provided by BLM Instructional Memorandum (IM) 2002-164

(Guidance on Environmental Justice in Planning).

Extension and

Hard Copy

Request

2009-1 Commenters requested that the BLM extend the comment

period 45 to 90 days, to allow more time to review the Draft

RMP and EIS and formulate comments. Several commenters

also requested hard-copy versions of the Draft RMP and EIS.

The BLM extended the public comment period for 45 days.

The BLM printed a limited number of hard-copy documents.

Hard copy versions were available at public libraries

throughout the planning area.

Fire and Fuels

Management

2010-1 Commenters identified a number of technical edits related to

fire and fuels. These edits included requests to use alternative

language, corrections to technical statements and/or terms,

definitions of terms, and clarification of language. In addition,

commenters provided suggested changes to Management

Actions Common to All Alternatives.

The BLM has updated the text of the Proposed RMP and

Final EIS to reflect commenter recommendations regarding

clarifying language and guidance, and to reflect commenter

recommendations regarding the proposed addition to

Management Actions Common to All Alternatives.

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1848 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Fish 2011-1 Commenters asserted that the RMP and EIS does not adequately

analyze certain impacts to fish and fish habitat, including (1)

impacts from oil and gas development to sensitive coldwater

fish species, (2) buffers for intermittent and ephemeral streams,

and (3) long-term and short-term impacts to fish longevity.

Commenters recommended increasing protections for fish by

designating streams as unique fisheries and increasing stream

buffer protections for perennial streams. Commenters also made

various data requests related to fish management, including

adding a map and correcting errors in a map.

The BLM revised the Fish sections of the Proposed RMP

and Final EIS based on commenter input where appropriate.

Details pertaining to sensitive coldwater fish are presented in

the Special Status Species section, and are not discussed in the

Fish section. Discussions regarding buffers for fish-bearing

streams are provided in the document where appropriate and

in compliance with the BLM Wyoming policy. Chapter 4

discusses type and duration of impacts on fish longevity;

however, these timeframes are used primarily as reference

periods in which to conduct the analysis and do not necessarily

apply to analysis of individual species.

The BLM reviewed GIS data and mapping products, and

revised and/or updated GIS shapefiles, text, acreage, and maps,

as appropriate, in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS.

Greater SageGrouse2012-1 Commenters expressed a varying range of opinions over

whether greater sage-grouse protections are insufficient,

overly restrictive, or are otherwise inconsistent with various

regulations and guidance documents for greater sage-grouse,

including the BLM State Director’s IM No. WY-2010-012,

the Wyoming Governor’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area

Protection Executive Order 2011-5, and/or the 2011 National

Technical Team (NTT) Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse

Conservation Measures. Commenters requested additional

scientific reasoning for instances in which the BLM decisions

were regarded as inconsistent with existing regulations

and guidance. Specific issues of concern included (1) the

expansion of timing limitations and night-time stipulations

on surface-disturbing activities, (2) the authorization of new

transmission lines, (3) the inclusion of leks with undetermined

occupancy in the BLM analyses, and (4) appropriate criteria

and methodologies for determining habitat, Core Area, buffer

distances, and disturbance caps.

Several commenters noted oil and gas development on private

lands are subject to restrictions in the Core Area strategy.

Commenters also noted that the Wyoming Governor’s Greater

Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection Executive Orders 2008-4

and 2010-4 have been replaced by Executive Order 2011-5, and

The BLM updated the alternatives, analyses, and other

applicable sections related to greater sage-grouse to reflect

changes in management to be consistent with National and

Wyoming policies and guidance on the management of greater

sage-grouse and their habitat. The Proposed RMP and Final

EIS maintains overall consistency with the Core Area strategy,

outlined in the Wyoming Governor’s Greater Sage-Grouse

Core Area Protection Executive Order 2011-5, and includes

additional conservation measures recommended in the NTT

Report. The BLM supplemented Appendix H (p. 1521) with

additional BMPs and Required Design Features for greater

sage-grouse protection that were identified in the NTT Report.

While the BLM did not incorporate all conservation measures

recommended in the NTT Report into the Proposed RMP,

the BLM believes all applicable conservation measures were

considered in one or more of the alternatives analyzed. The

NTT Conformance Table, available on the Lander RMP

website (http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/

rmps/lander.html), provides additional information about

how the BLM incorporated conservation measures into the

Proposed RMP and Final EIS.

The Proposed RMP and Final EIS includes a range of

reasonable alternatives for greater sage-grouse management

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1849

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

that any references or associated language should be updated to

reflect the most recent Executive Order.

Commenters requested that Alternative D avoidance and

exclusion maps based on greater sage-grouse habitat types

be updated to remain consistent with the provisions in

the Wyoming Governor’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area

Protection Executive Order 2011-5.

and the BLM revised the document to include additional

and updated information on greater sage-grouse Core Area

management, including changes to management actions and an

updated definition of Core Area in the Glossary. Additionally,

the BLM verified the analysis and incorporated the latest

greater sage-grouse Core Area data from the Wyoming Game

and Fish Department (WGFD) as of the end of the public

comment period.

The BLM added language in Chapter 4 to clarify that private

lands are not subject to BLM Core Area or non-Core Area

stipulations; however, oil and gas activities on private land

would be subject to Core Area stipulations promulgated by

the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and the

Wyoming DEQ.

In addition, the BLM reviewed the Alternative D corridor maps

in relation to the Wyoming Governor’s Greater Sage-Grouse

Core Area Protection Executive Order 2011-5 and identified

several appropriate changes, although the BLM did not make

all the changes commenters suggested.

Greater SageGrouse2012-2 Commenters indicated that the analysis of greater sage-grouse

could be improved by including more descriptive explanations,

additional rationale and analysis criteria, clarification

of terminology, and scientific references. Specifically,

commenters questioned or raised concerns pertaining to (1)

greater sage-grouse impacts on and from livestock grazing

management, particularly regarding the impacts of water

development and fencing on nesting cover, (2) impacts to

greater sage-grouse from oil and gas development, (3) spatial

inconsistencies between Core Area depicted in the Wyoming

Governor’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection

Executive Order 2011-5 and those delineated by the BLM, (4)

inadequate historical context and data on greater sage-grouse

populations in the region, (5) use of the Density Disturbance

Calculation Tool, and (6) in some cases, commenters cited

specific research the BLM could reference to inform agency

decisions regarding greater sage-grouse impacts on and from

other resources.

The BLM revised the analyses in applicable sections on

greater sage-grouse in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS,

including clarification of impacts associated with or from

livestock grazing and oil and gas development, consistency

with the Wyoming Governor’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area

Protection Executive Order 2011-5, and supplemental text and

supporting scientific references, as appropriate.

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1850 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Greater SageGrouse2012-3 Commenters offered specific recommendations and critiques,

and requested additional clarification for a variety of

greater sage-grouse management provisions in the RMP and

EIS, including prescriptions related to buffer size, habitat

connectivity, disturbance caps, fencing, water development,

seasonal timing limitations, noise, noxious weeds, and

ravens. Commenters also suggested revising the biological

resource goals to clarify the BLM’s intent to maintain and

preserve connections between greater sage-grouse habitat

while providing for multiple-use management. A number of

commenters requested that the BLM clarify restrictions on

wind-energy development, particularly in Core Area.

The BLM revised management actions and applicable sections

on greater sage-grouse in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS.

Specifically, the BLM updated text to ensure consistency with

the Wyoming Governor’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area

Protection Executive Order 2011-5, include additional scientific

citations, clarify restrictions associated with wind-energy

development in Core Area, and require anti-perching and

predation deterrents, and made other revisions, as appropriate.

Health and Safety 2013-1 Commenters questioned the bonding provision for

surface-disturbing activity in the RMP and EIS, with some

commenters suggesting expanding the requirements to better

protect public health and safety and making the bonding

provision cover ecological function. Other commenters opposed

the bonding provision, suggesting it was adequately covered

in the BLM policy and federal regulations and therefore not

necessary to address in the RMP and EIS.

The Lander Field Office does not have the authority to

determine how operators are bonded. BLM policy is to bond as

accurately as possible to ensure full reclamation from mining

activities to the desired future condition. The BLM guidance

supports addressing bond requirements in a planning document.

Invasive Species 2014-1 Commenters expressed concerns that the overall approach to

invasive species management is insufficient to prevent the

spread of invasive species, and is onerous to operators who

must comply with measures to prevent invasive species spread.

Commenters proposed changes to reclamation requirements

regarding invasive species including (1) reconsidering the

timeframe required to successfully establish shrubs and

forbs after reclamation, (2) reducing the standard for percent

allowable invasive nonnative species in non-DDAs, and (3)

reconsidering the objectives for final reclamation in non-DDAs.

Commenters also suggested additional actions to reduce

invasive species spread, such as implementing a plan to reduce

cheatgrass invasion.

Commenters also suggested revisions to clarify and correct

inconsistencies and purported inaccuracies in the text related to

livestock grazing and spread of invasive species, lists of noxious

weeds, weed transmittal, and interim reclamation standards.

After further review, the BLM believes the overall approach

to invasive species management in the Proposed RMP and

Final EIS is adequate. Reclamation standards are designed

to prevent the spread of invasive species and vary between

DDAs and non-DDAs. Reclamation objectives in non-DDAs

must meet a higher standard than in DDAs because non-DDAs

include identified resources such as greater sage-grouse Core

Area or other important wildlife and plant species. The basis

for reclamation standards in non-DDA areas is restoration

of habitat similar to that prior to disturbance. Reclamation

standards do not establish timelines for considering when

reclamation is successful.

The BLM has updated the Proposed RMP and Final EIS

to address inconsistencies and provide additional clarity as

needed. Specifically, the BLM revised text to correct an

inconsistency related to interim reclamation standards in

Chapter 4.

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1851

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Lands and Realty 2015-1 Commenters requested land tenure adjustments for multiple

reasons, including public shooting ranges, recreation

opportunities, wildlife protection, and livestock grazing.

The BLM revised Appendix R (p. 1623) to include new parcels

identified for land tenure adjustment, correct errors in legal

descriptions, and add parcels that were inadvertently omitted

in the Draft RMP and EIS. Parcels added would provide for a

public shooting range, and consolidate isolated parcels used

for livestock grazing. The BLM is currently working with

the State of Wyoming on an agreement to exchange lands for

recreation and wildlife values.

Laws, Regulations,

Guidance, Process

2016-1 Commenters stated the Draft RMP and EIS did not contain

sufficient historical or baseline data for assessing impacts,

provided an inadequate analysis of impacts, and that the

BLM did not follow relevant FLMPA and NEPA processes

or comply with BLM policy and Council on Environmental

Quality guidance and other relevant laws and land use plans.

Commenters asserted the BLM did not fully involve interested

parties, stakeholders, and/or cooperators during development

of the RMP and EIS or its alternatives, or share data with

interested parties.

The BLM has reviewed and ensured compliance with FLPMA,

NEPA, and other relevant laws, policy, and land use plans. As

revised, the BLM believes the Proposed RMP and Final EIS

adequately analyzes impacts from proposed management and

includes sufficient historical or baseline data for assessing

impacts. The BLM has met its collaboration/cooperating

agency requirements in accordance with FLPMA and public

involvement requirements under NEPA. The BLM has

provided non-confidential data to entities that have made such

requests.

Leasable Minerals

– Geothermal

2017-1 Commenters expressed general concerns regarding potential

impacts from geothermal development on sensitive resources.

Specifically, commenters stated that the buffer restricting

geothermal development near the National Landscape

Conservation System trail corridor is not large enough to protect

the values of the corridor and is not consistent with management

of the proposed special recreation areas, ACECs, and trail

management areas that would be established along the National

Landscape Conservation System corridor.

Several commenters referenced new data showing geothermal

energy potential in the Dubois area, and requested the BLM

review and incorporate this new data into the Proposed RMP

and Final EIS. In addition, commenters requested that the BLM

more accurately describe the history of geothermal leasing

in the planning area, including the fact that the BLM did not

analyze geothermal leasing in the 1987 RMP.

The National Landscape Conservation System trail corridor is

managed with an NSO stipulation and beyond that is subject to

Visual Resource Management (VRM) limitations. The BLM

believes this management provides sufficient protection of

values in the corridor.

The BLM has considered the new data regarding geothermal

energy potential in the Dubois area. However, given the

important wildlife values that are incompatible with geothermal

development, the Dubois area is closed to geothermal leasing.

Alternative A recognizes that the 1987 RMP did not analyze

geothermal resources.

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1852 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Leasable Minerals

– Oil and Gas

2018-1 Commenters expressed a number of concerns related to DDA

establishment, expansion, and development constraints. In this

regard, commenters requested detailed information explaining

how DDA boundaries are determined, and clarification on the

applicability of various development stipulations occurring

therein. Commenters specifically recommended that the BLM

(1) provide a mechanism that would allow the future expansion

of DDAs without requiring an RMP amendment, (2) limit the

application of standard stipulations and/or COAs for operations

in DDAs, particularly if they would compromise valid existing

lease rights or curtail mineral production, (3) remove seasonal

protections in DDAs, and (4) reconfigure DDA boundaries to

avoid overlap with the Ninemile Draw Important Bird Area.

The BLM has updated the Proposed RMP and Final EIS to

reflect changes, including application of DDA stipulations,

conducting year-round operations in DDAs, and waiver

procedures for seasonal protections for operations in DDAs.

The BLM has determined that an expansion of the DDAs

would require an RMP amendment.

Leasable Minerals

– Oil and Gas

2018-2 Given the minimal, short-term surface disturbances caused

by geophysical exploration, commenters asserted that these

activities should not be limited to the same extent and in

the same areas where oil and gas development is prohibited.

Furthermore, commenters argued that removing limitations

on the collection of geophysical data would reduce future

disturbances by reducing the number of wells required to locate

and produce the targeted resource. Commenters also questioned

if the BLM has legal authority to encourage the sharing of

seismic data between operators.

The BLM has determined that, at a minimum, geophysical

exploration is a disruptive activity. The BLM does not agree

that a blanket closure is inappropriate since an exception may

be obtained. The BLM can encourage the sharing of data that

would reduce the demand for additional surveys and associated

impacts to other resources.

Leasable Minerals

– Oil and Gas

2018-3 Commenters expressed general concern that lease stipulations

and mitigation measures for mineral development in the

RMP and EIS are more restrictive than necessary based on

FLPMA and Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates. Specifically,

commenters requested more detailed descriptions and reasoning

regarding (1) the amount of acres closed to mineral development

and subject to NSO and other stipulations, (2) how oil and gas

development in the planning area will be managed for and

affected by wildlife stipulations proposed in the alternatives, (3)

economic impacts associated with closures, major constraints,

and seasonal prohibitions placed on mineral leasing in the

planning area, and (4) assurances that proposed stipulations

will not interfere with valid existing lease rights. Commenters

made specific requests for the BLM to revise management of

oil and gas, such as allowing basic maintenance and emergency

actions for oil and gas operations year-round despite proposed

seasonal closures and timing limitations. Other commenters

The BLM has reviewed and updated the Proposed RMP and

Final EIS to ensure consistency with applicable state and

federal laws and policy. Specifically, the BLM revised text

regarding the validity of existing lease rights, included the

most current BMPs, used the Density Disturbance Calculation

Tool for surface-disturbance evaluations in greater sage-grouse

Core Area, more clearly described where NSO stipulations

apply, and modified designated corridors for pipeline routes.

The Proposed RMP and Final EIS incorporates the Core Area

strategy, which includes surface-disturbance caps and limits on

the number of energy developments. A substantial amount of

Core Area is NSO for the protection of a variety of resources,

including other wildlife and trails. The BLM reviewed the

economic analysis, and believes the Proposed RMP and Final

EIS adequately analyzes the impacts to the local and regional

economy from oil and gas management.

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1853

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

favored the implementation of additional closures, and/or

recommended additional BMPs and mitigation measures for oil

and gas development.

Commenters also requested the BLM give further consideration

and incorporate additional analysis associated with emergent

technologies including Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR),

horizontal well drilling, and CO2 sequestration.

The BLM has considered emergent technologies in the

Proposed RMP and Final EIS and made appropriate revisions,

including modifying designated corridors to provide more

pipeline routes.

Leasable Minerals

– Oil and Gas

2018-4 Commenters expressed opposition to the Beaver Rim Master

Leasing Plan (MLP) because it would be redundant in light

of the existing alternative analysis and associated resource

protections presented in the RMP and EIS. Therefore,

commenters requested that more detailed reasoning and decision

criteria be provided to determine whether the application of

an MLP is warranted. One commenter in favor of the Beaver

Rim MLP suggested that additional restrictions be placed on

development near known occurrences of desert yellowhead.

IM 2010-117 authorized the BLM to consider proposals for

and identify areas suitable for management as an MLP. The

BLM received five nominations for MLPs, although only the

Beaver Rim area was carried forward for detailed analysis.

Chapter 2 includes the identification and consideration of all

five proposed MLP areas, and Chapter 3 provides additional

details regarding the Beaver Rim MLP. No additional analysis

on MLPs is anticipated until a new MLP area is proposed.

The BLM already has management in place that addresses the

protection of desert yellowhead.

Leasable Minerals

– Oil and Gas

2018-5 A commenter requested that the BLM require the disclosure

of compounds in produced water and their concentrations

to better assess potential impacts to nearby water resources.

The commenter requested that the BLM establish additional

provisions regulating the disposal of produced water.

The BLM does not have authority to establish provisions that

regulate the disposal of produced water because the State of

Wyoming regulates these actions.

The BLM analyzed and included text in the Proposed RMP and

Final EIS regarding potential for impacts to BLM-administered

lands associated with produced water, with reference to State

of Wyoming pollutant levels.

Leasable Minerals

– Oil and Gas

2018-6 Commenters stated that the analysis of the Reasonable

Foreseeable Development (RFD) underestimates the potential

for the discovery of minerals and oil and gas reserves, noting

the large number of potential well sites identified in recent

development proposals. Furthermore, commenters stated that

the RMP and EIS does not adequately analyze development

potential associated with horizontal drilling and the associated

surface disturbance impacts of fewer numbers of larger well

pads. Many commenters requested that the BLM include

additional clarification that the RFD does not represent a

planning decision or development “cap”.

The BLM believes the RFD provides an appropriate estimate

of future development for purposes of comparing alternatives,

given the data available and the uncertainty in future oil and gas

development. The BLM revised the Proposed RMP and Final

EIS to further clarify that the RFD is an estimate of mineral

development potential and is in no way a limitation on future

oil and gas development in the planning area. The BLM uses

the RFD as a tool to compare impacts across the alternatives.

Site-specific impacts, including surface disturbance from

horizontal drilling, or impacts on air resources are best

analyzed project by project.

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1854 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Leasable Minerals

– Oil Shale

2019-1 Commenters stated that the RMP and EIS failed to accurately

account for the potential for development of oil shale formations

in the planning area. Commenters argued that the BLM’s

decision to restrict future oil shale development to currently

producing areas contradicts the agency’s multiple-use and

sustained yield mandates. One commenter suggested that

alternative language be used to explain the BLM standard for

processing oil shale applications.

The BLM modified text in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS to

clarify that “oil shale” development in the context of the RMP

refers to unconventional oil shale-tar sand development, and

not to conventional oil and gas operations in shale formations.

The BLM believes the overall approach to oil shale-tar sands in

the RMP and EIS is adequate and is consistent with the BLM’s

multiple-use mission.

The BLM revised the text related to processing applications.

The statement was meant to indicate that the lease could not

be approved without a land use amendment. An application

could be denied as inconsistent with the Proposed RMP and

Final EIS, because oil shale-tar sands were not analyzed and

leases were not authorized.

Leasable Minerals

– Other Solid

Leasable Minerals

2020-1 Commenters asserted that the BLM failed to accurately depict

phosphate development potential in the planning area, and that

management was too restrictive in areas with high phosphate

development potential. Specifically, commenters expressed

concern that (1) discussion of phosphate potential based

on current market conditions is not accurate, (2) phosphate

resources in the planning area have not been fully identified,

(3) the BLM has not acknowledged that technology has

improved, providing access to phosphate resources that were

previously considered inaccessible, including underground

mining methods, and (4) the discussion of adverse impacts to

phosphate development are not accurate.

Commenters also noted various inconsistencies in the RMP

and EIS, including surface disturbance stipulations in greater

sage-grouse Core Area.

The discussion of phosphate potential and market conditions

in the RMP and EIS relies on the Final Mineral Occurrence

and Development Potential Report for the Lander Field

Office, which used the most current information at the time

it was written. Commodity prices for all minerals, including

phosphate, are in constant flux; therefore, the discussion of

prices and market conditions provides a snapshot of the time

this section was written. However, in considering phosphate

and other mineral development, the BLM takes a long-term

view using the most current data available. The BLM modified

the phosphate sections of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS to

indicate that both underground and surface mining have been

evaluated. The BLM reviewed the phosphate section, including

the analysis, and revised it for inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1855

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Livestock Grazing

Management

2021-1 Commenters expressed concern about the Animal Unit

Month (AUM) reductions proposed in the RMP and EIS, and

questioned the scientific methods the BLM used to determine

the location and amount of AUM reductions to minimize

conflicts with other resources. Commenters requested additional

information on current livestock grazing AUMs by allotment

and preference and suspended AUMs.

The proposed RMP does not reduce or increase AUMs, but

identifies the potential based on current rangeland health

and the proposed alternative. The BLM discloses projected

AUMs for each alternative in Chapter 2 and provides

allotment categorization in Appendix K (p. 1547). In

general, AUM adjustments are made through subsequent

implementation-level analyses and decisions based on

monitoring data and on-the-ground conditions. The BLM

revised the AUM numbers/acreage where appropriate based

on comments received. Additionally, the BLM added details

that clarify AUMs by allotment and livestock type (i.e., cattle

or sheep), provided additional references where appropriate,

and inserted text that details why areas have not historically

been available to grazing. The RMP only applies to federal

lands in the Lander Field Office planning area. Private and

state land AUMs and suspended AUMs are not part of the

affected environment; therefore, it is inappropriate to include

this information in the document.

Livestock Grazing

Management

2021-2 Commenters sought clarification on the use of Comprehensive

Grazing Strategies, including their definition, purpose, and

requirements. Additionally, commenters requested clarification

on the Comprehensive Grazing Strategy process, scale, criteria

for development, and if a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy

would replace the need for an Allotment Management Plan.

First, and foremost, Comprehensive Grazing Strategies

are intended to maintain, and/or make substantial progress

toward, fulfillment of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands. The BLM has modified the discussion regarding

Comprehensive Grazing Strategies in Appendix K (p. 1547) to

clarify its definition and use. The revised discussion addresses

the concerns regarding grazing intensity and season of use.

The BLM revised the document to clarify that Comprehensive

Grazing Strategies do not need to be a formalized management

plan and do not replace the need for an Allotment Management

Plan.

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1856 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Livestock Grazing

Management

2021-3 Commenters stated there was a lack of adequate disclosure of

impacts and/or consequences associated with livestock grazing

in the planning area and suggested revisions to the BLM’s

approach to livestock grazing management. Specifically,

commenters requested more discussion on the economic

impacts as a result of proposed livestock grazing management

changes, impacts of livestock grazing to/from wildlife species

(including special status species), and policies and specific

management actions or changes in current management.

Commenters also requested additional details pertinent to

the livestock grazing management analysis, including (1)

clarification of terminology, (2) supporting scientific citations

for technical statements, (3) details on determination of

utilization levels for allotments, (4) specific requirements

and limitations placed on livestock grazing practices for the

protection of other resources, and (5) clarification indicating

if livestock management activities are or are not considered

surface-disturbing activities.

The BLM developed and analyzed alternatives in the Proposed

RMP and Final EIS using the best available information in

compliance with federal laws, guidelines, and policies. The

BLM used GIS data that analyzed fence placement, distance

from water, precipitation, vegetation, and production, as well

as competing resources, such as wild horses and wildlife, to

estimate likely future impacts. This approach allowed the BLM

to calculate input to the IMPLAN model so that the economic

consequences of the alternatives could be compared. The BLM

has revised Appendix K (p. 1547) to address how the agency

addresses livestock grazing management and conflicts with

other resources.

In addition, the BLM reviewed and revised the Proposed

RMP and Final EIS as necessary to include clarifying

text/terminology, supporting scientific citations, and correct

acreage and AUM figures, and to reflect the fact that the

BLM does not consider livestock grazing or other herbivory

to be a surface-disturbing activity. The Proposed RMP and

Final EIS does not set utilization levels for livestock grazing,

because those levels are established in site-specific allotment

management plans.

Livestock Grazing

Management

2021-4 Commenters requested additional information in the RMP

regarding how the BLM considers range improvements,

specifically regarding placement, implementation, and type of

water sources; fence lines; and gate operations.

The BLM considers range improvements as needed to

implement a Comprehensive Grazing Management Strategy.

The agency will evaluate impacts resulting from any proposed

range improvement in site-specific NEPA documents.

Livestock Grazing

Management

2021-5 Commenters expressed concern about how the BLM is

considering rangeland health, including the process for

conducting and considering rangeland health assessments,

and addressing allotments that failed to meet the Standards

for Healthy Rangelands. Specifically, commenters requested

additional details about the methods and procedures the BLM

used to complete rangeland and livestock grazing allotment

assessments, and how impacts of livestock grazing on other

resources were included in the assessments.

The BLM is required to meet the Standards for Healthy

Rangelands and conform to the Guidelines for Livestock

Grazing Management in accordance with 43 CFR 4180.2.

In areas that fail to meet Standards for Healthy Rangelands,

the BLM will use the Guidelines to establish appropriate

actions. The BLM will work with the permittees, state and

local governments, and the interested public to address those

standards on a site-specific basis analyzed under NEPA. The

BLM has provided clarification in the Proposed RMP and Final

EIS that changes to grazing management are implemented

when rangelands are not meeting standards due to current

livestock grazing, and provided details on the process for

completing standards assessments.

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1857

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Locatable Minerals 2022-1 Commenters requested the BLM provide greater protections to

resource values, such as greater sage-grouse habitat and ACECs,

from locatable mineral activity, including increasing the acreage

of withdrawals from mineral entry in an effort to further protect

environmental, scenic, and cultural values in these areas.

Other commenters asserted the BLM did not recognize the

value or volume of uranium resources in the planning area,

and requested the BLM include additional information on the

mineral’s importance to the region and nation in providing clean

and abundant energy and high-paying jobs.

Commenters pointed out factual inaccuracies in the RMP and

EIS about certain aspects of uranium operations in the planning

area, such as the potential for surface and underground mining

of uranium, in addition to in situ recovery. Commenters also

requested updated and additional data and information in the

RMP and EIS related to research on mineral potential and the

location and impacts to individual mining claims.

The BLM updated management in the Minerals sections

in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS identifying additional

areas to pursue for mineral withdrawal, including along the

Lander Front. In other areas, the Core Area strategy provides

protection for greater sage-grouse and other resource values

from locatable mineral activity. In addition, FLPMA Section

302(b) requires the BLM to prevent unnecessary or undue

degradation of public lands. The BLM revised the Proposed

RMP and Final EIS to clarify the process by which ACECs may

be withdrawn on a case-by-case basis and provide the rational

for lands considered for withdrawal in greater sage-grouse

Core Area, and made other revisions, as appropriate.

The BLM believes the discussion of uranium in the RMP and

EIS accurately depicts uranium’s importance and benefits in

the planning area, and the magnitude of deposits.

The BLM updated the Minerals sections in the Proposed RMP

and Final EIS to reflect that, in addition to in situ recovery,

open-pit and underground mining could be used to extract

uranium in the planning area. The operational status of the

Big Eagle Mine was updated as open. Regarding updating and

using additional data, the BLM uses and incorporates the most

current data available on mineral potential.

Recreation 2023-1 Commenters generally requested the BLM provide more

opportunities for recreation activities and protect popular

recreation areas from incompatible uses. Commenters suggested

withdrawing certain recreation areas from mineral entry to

preserve recreation opportunities, and designating other areas as

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) or Extensive

Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) to manage for specific

recreation opportunities.

Commenters suggested other revisions and considerations

to clarify the analysis of impacts and justify management

prescriptions that would limit incompatible resource uses.

For example, a commenter requested the BLM address how

reduction in AUMS for some ranches could result in the loss of

hunting and fishing opportunities on private property.

The BLM has identified areas in the Proposed RMP and Final

EIS that will be withdrawn from mineral entry or designated

as SRMAs or ERMAs. Where appropriate, the BLM revised

the text in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS to clarify impacts

and incorporate additional analysis. The BLM has revised the

document to include analysis of loss of hunting and fishing on

private properties, and updated the Proposed RMP and Final

EIS to reflect potential impacts of the loss of AUMs to fishing

and hunting on private ranches.

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1858 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Renewable Energy 2024-1 Commenters indicated that certain areas should be designated

as exclusion and avoidance areas for wind-energy development

to protect wildlife and maintain management consistency

with other designated areas; other commenters requested

that additional areas be opened to wind-energy development.

Commenters requested a more defined management approach

(as opposed to case-by-case management) and suggested

larger buffers and BMPs to protect visual, wildlife, and other

values. Multiple commenters requested that the BLM remove

language regarding surface-disturbing caps on renewable and

conventional energy development or add clarifying language

that explains where and how surface-disturbing caps are applied.

The BLM has updated the Proposed RMP and Final EIS to

reflect changes in areas that are designated as wind-energy

development exclusion and avoidance areas, and limitations on

wind-energy development in greater sage-grouse Core Area.

The surface-disturbance caps referenced in Chapter 2 are for

greater sage-grouse Core Area protection. The disturbance

cap applies to all surface-disturbing activities in Core Area,

including conventional energy development, and is consistent

with the Governor's Executive Order for Core Area Protection.

Rights-of-Way and

Corridors

2025-1 Several commenters expressed concern about management

of communication sites, including expiration of leases

(specifically communications facilities on Whiskey Mountain)

and restrictions on placement of new communication sites.

The BLM is encouraging investments in modern

communications infrastructure (e.g., such as fiber optics)

while discouraging unplanned scattering of older technology

(e.g., transmission towers) in locations that could result in

adverse impacts. Applications for future sites in existing

communication sites will have facilitated review, while

applications for communication sites outside of approved or

existing sites will require standard review under NEPA. The

BLM updated Chapter 3 to incorporate additional information

provided by commenters related to existing communication

sites on Whiskey Peak, specifically identifying the various

services provided by the sites.

Rights-of-Way and

Corridors

2025-2 Commenters suggested revising the length and width of ROW

corridors, consolidating corridors, and creating new corridors

to accommodate additional or fewer pipelines, transmission

lines, and other linear features. Connectivity between corridors

already designated in other field office planning areas and

corridors proposed in the planning area was a concern to

commenters.

Commenters also recommended map and data revisions to

correct inaccuracies or inconsistencies, including where

exclusion and avoidance areas overlap ROW corridors.

The BLM revised the ROW management and designated

corridors in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS in applicable

sections, including increasing capacity and connecting

corridors where applicable. Some of the corridors identified

by other field offices do not consider resource conflicts in the

Lander Field Office planning area, such as the limited capacity

of the Beef Gap area or the mining and U.S. Department of

Energy activities in the Gas Hills. Coordination between field

offices cannot always resolve complicated conflicts that might

not be apparent at the time of the initial field office planning

efforts. The BLM has incorporated changes in the Proposed

RMP and Final EIS to adopt designated corridors from other

field offices where possible.

In addition, the BLM updated the maps to address commenters’

concerns as appropriate. including revising ROW exclusion

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1859

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

and avoidance areas and designated corridors. The maps are

for illustration purposes only – the management actions in the

RMP are the decision.

Rights-of-Way and

Corridors

2025-3 Commenters questioned the overall adequacy of the analysis

in the ROW and Corridors section and requested additional

rationale to support the proposed exclusion and avoidance areas

under the Preferred Alternative. Some questioned if the ROWs

and corridors were consistent with the Wyoming Governor’s

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection Executive Order

2011-5. Commenters also suggested clarifying language and

ways to improve the analysis, such as more discussion of

management prescriptions for overhead transmission facilities,

a more detailed discussion of reclamation of public land

disturbance from an ROW permit, and adding definitions for

“major” and “minor” ROW actions.

The BLM modified exclusion areas and avoidance areas and

reviewed the RMP to ensure the document provided adequate

analysis and justification for the areas. ROWs and corridors

designated in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS are consistent

with the Wyoming Governor’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area

Protection Executive Order 2011-5.

The BLM identifies corridors in the Proposed RMP and

Final EIS, while specific management prescriptions related

to transmission lines, such as continued access to the lines

and emergency maintenance activities, are part of the

implementation process. Reclamation of all BLM-approved

disturbances is addressed in the Soil sections, Appendix

D (p. 1477), andAppendix H (p. 1521); definitions of major

and minor ROWs are provided in the Glossary; and current

BLM policy will be incorporated in the permit during the

application process for renewable energy projects.

Riparian-Wetland 2026-1 Commenters stated that the analysis did not fully describe

or consider the importance and existing conditions of

riparian-wetlands in the planning area. Specifically commenters

asserted the BLM did not propose limitations or requirements,

or provide clear objectives for management of these resources

beyond the proper functioning condition. Commentersrequested

additional discussion on the impacts to riparian-wetlands

resulting from livestock grazing activities, range improvements,

and infrastructure developments.

Commenters also questioned aspects of the BLM’s approach

to riparian-wetland protection, including setbacks, mitigation,

and monitoring, and whether they were in compliance with

Executive Order 11990. Commenters suggested applying NSO

stipulations around high-value riparian-wetlands as another

method for protecting these highly productive areas.

The BLM reviewed all sections pertinent to riparian-wetlands

management and determined that the stated goals and

management in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS are

appropriate.

The BLM revised the text in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS,

as appropriate, to provide technical corrections, additional

text, and clarifications as needed. Specifically, the BLM added

language pertaining to management of the proper functioning

condition and evaluation of season-long grazing practices

on riparian-wetlands. While the BLM agrees that additional

stipulations, such as NSO, would provide a higher level of

protection for riparian-wetland areas, the agency believes it

more appropriate to consider such stipulations on a site-specific

basis.

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1860 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Salable Minerals 2027-1 Commenters questioned the BLM’s closure of areas to mineral

material disposal and the analysis that supported the closures.

Commenters were particularly concerned about access to

mineral material sites in the western portion of the planning area

to maintain local roads. Commenters requested that the BLM

reevaluate potential resource conflicts and acknowledge that

environmental impacts associated with materials disposal sites

can be successfully mitigated.

The BLM has determined that the Proposed RMP and Final

EIS adequately addresses the commenters’ concerns regarding

potential resource conflicts and materials disposal site

mitigation, as currently written.

Regarding closing portions of the western part of the planning

area to mineral material disposal, the BLM does not believe

this would adversely impact local road maintenance, because

private sources appear able to meet the demand. However,

closure of the South Pass area would not apply to the free

use of mineral materials for the purposes of constructing

and maintaining federally funded highways, as described in

the BLM and Federal Highway Administration interagency

agreement. In addition, the BLM has revised the discussion of

management of the Dubois area to reflect that existing mineral

material areas can continue to be used.

Socioeconomic 2028-1 Commenters questioned the adequacy of the analysis of social

and economic impacts, and expressed concern about the

impact of BLM management on local and regional economies.

Commenters asserted the BLM did not adequately consider

sources of revenue based on visitation, impacts to the local

economy from withdrawing lands from mineral entry, impacts to

the local economy from restrictions on oil and gas development,

economic impacts from trends in the livestock industry, and

economic impacts of new VRM I and II classifications. Other

commenters suggested more discussion on topics such as the

value of recreation to the Lander area economy, impacts of

heritage tourism on the economy, and economic impacts of

greater sage-grouse restrictions on oil and gas development.

Other commenters addressed how pacing development was

not the responsibility of the BLM, while others thought the

provision should be expanded to include impacts on natural

resources. Commenters expressed concern that an Economic

Strategies Workshop was never conducted as required in the

BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1)

Commenters recommended including the Social and Economic

Monitoring Plan developed by Dr. Robert Winthrop in the

RMP and EIS. Commenters recommended that the BLM

The BLM has determined that the economic analysis

adequately addresses commenters’ requests regarding further

analysis of sources of revenue based on visitation, impacts

to the local economy from withdrawing lands from mineral

entry, impacts to the local economy from restrictions on oil

and gas development, economic impacts from trends in the

livestock industry, economic impacts of new VRM I and II

classifications, and economic contribution of ranching, as

currently written.

It is entirely within the BLM's area of responsibility to ensure

that authorized activities consider socioeconomic impacts, and

the management would not limit operators' ability to ensure

maximum ultimate recovery, nor would it inhibit their ability

to respond to market conditions. Impacts on natural resources

will be addressed on a site-specific basis as individual projects

are developed.

The BLM held an Economic Strategies Workshop in 2007 and

has solicited input from Cooperating Agencies and members

of the public through various forums throughout the revision

process, thereby meeting the objectives in H-1601-1.

The BLM will consider using the plan developed by Dr. Robert

Winthrop in developing the indicators during implementation.

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1861

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

identify specific user groups (e.g., mineral extraction industries,

renewable energy users, recreation users, including locals and

visitors, environmental education organizations, and grazing

users) and address conflicts that occur between groups.

The BLM has determined that the Proposed RMP and Final

EIS as written adequately addresses the comments. Specific

user groups and conflicts among users are fully described in the

applicable sections of the RMP and EIS.

Socioeconomic 2028-2 Commenters stated that the socioeconomic analysis, and the

IMPLAN model in particular, fail to provide an adequate

picture of the local economy. Specifically, commenters stated

the IMPLAN model did not adequately address the value to the

local economy of ranching, recreation, local businesses such as

National Outdoor Leadership School, and activities on public

lands. Commenters suggested the Regional Economics Model,

Inc., as an alternative to IMPLAN, and suggested additional

data and analysis topics for the BLM to consider, including

local recreation, statistics for surrounding communities, tax

revenues at the state level, and economic impacts of air quality

restrictions.

The BLM updated Chapter 3 to include additional information

about the value to the local economy of local industry and

businesses such as National Outdoor Leadership School. The

BLM believes that the IMPLAN analysis is more suitable for

the purposes of the RMP revision than the Regional Economics

Model, Inc., and that it adequately analyzes local recreation,

statistics for surrounding communities, tax revenues at the state

level, and economic impacts of air quality restrictions.

Soil 2029-1 Commenters expressed a variety of opinions about whether

management of soils in the RMP and EIS provided adequate

protection or was overly restrictive, to the detriment of other

resource uses. Commenters suggested ways the BLM could

improve soil management by clarifying certain management

actions (e.g., management of Limited Reclamation Potential

[LRP] soils) and incorporating new scientific data and literature.

Some commenters recommended the BLM place additional

conditions on surface-disturbing activities, such as requiring

the completion of a watershed protection plan and requiring

further study and mitigation measures prior to allowing surface

disturbances. Other commenters requested the BLM reduce the

conditions on surface-disturbing activities.

Commenters suggested that the analysis of soils in the RMP and

EIS could be improved by including additional rationale and

analysis criteria and a more quantitative analysis of soil erosion

in the planning area, including a comparison of sediment

contributions from natural and human sources. Commenters

recommended that impacts to soils in the planning area from

certain resources and activities be reassessed using these and

other suggested methods.

The BLM has updated the Proposed RMP and Final EIS to

clarify the agency’s approach to soil management regarding

analysis of LRP soils, surface discharge of produced water,

natural causes of soil and water quality degradation, and

impacts of fire. The BLM believes that limitations on

surface-disturbing activities to protect soil resources are

adequate. While applying further study or mitigation measures

prior to allowing surface disturbance might provide beneficial

protection to soil resources, this determination is more

appropriately made on a site-specific basis. Similarly, soil

erosion modeling is better performed on a project-specific basis

when more detailed site and project data are available.

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1862 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Soil 2029-2 Numerous commenters suggested that the BLM more

completely define, provide justification for, or otherwise revise

its objectives and standards for reclamation and monitoring.

Commenters requested that the BLM (1) clarify that reclamation

plans would be required for oil and gas drilling operations under

all alternatives and (2) provide additional information regarding

reclamation plan requirements in LRP areas. Commenters

offered many suggestions regarding the optimal balance

between specific site-level prescriptions and more general

comprehensive reclamation plans. Some commenters expressed

their convictions that the proposed accountability mechanisms

were insufficient for ensuring successful reclamation, as

evidenced by poor revegetation success in existing reclamation

areas.

The BLM has updated applicable sections of the Proposed

RMP and Final EIS in response to comments, including adding

additional information on Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) Ecological Site Descriptions and LRP soils.

Soil management requires a site-specific application and cannot

be defined; neither can reclamation measures be identified at

the RMP level. Specific reclamation objections are based on

site-specific analysis.

Special Status

Species

2030-1 Commenters stated that adverse impacts to certain special status

species analyzed in the RMP and EIS were in some cases

unsupported, exaggerated, and/or inconsistent with existing

scientific literature and management directives. Commenters

recommended the inclusion of additional scientific data, U.S.

Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) monitoring and management directives in the RMP

and EIS, and the 2005 statewide Canada lynx Biological

Assessment (BA).

Specifically, commenters stated there were deficiencies or

errors in the BLM’s analysis of the historic range, occupancy,

habitat, and adverse impacts resulting from timber management

and grazing on Canada lynx, and the impacts of road

density, timber management, and buffer size on northern

goshawk. Commenters also requested additional evidence to

substantiate stated adverse impacts from wild horses and fence

construction on desert yellowhead and sensitive bird species,

respectively. Commenters suggested that the BLM identify

potentially occupied pygmy rabbit habitat in the planning area

to substantiate the limitations placed on surface-disturbing

activities.

The BLM developed and analyzed impacts to special status

species in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS using the best

available information in compliance with federal laws,

guidelines, and policies. As appropriate, the BLM updated

the analysis in applicable sections and added references that

support decisions regarding special status species. Specifically,

the BLM revised the Proposed RMP and Final EIS to include

text to clarify the impacts of timber management, road density,

and livestock grazing activities on special status species in the

planning area.

Pygmy rabbit habitat has not been identified for the entire

planning area, and the BLM believes that including a map

would be misinterpreted as being a complete depiction of

habitat. Chapter 3 identifies what constitutes suitable habitat

for pygmy rabbit, and the BLM has added text to expand the

description of where occupied habitat has been identified.

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1863

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Special Status

Species

2030-2 The BLM also received comments on the Draft BA that was

released about the same time as the Draft RMP and EIS. One

commenter noted that the section on the BA incorrectly reported

(1) that no Canada lynx tracks were observed during surveys

in the Dubois area and (2) omitted a subsequent Canada lynx

detection in Long Creek. Other commenters questioned why the

BLM would release the BA prior to selection of the Proposed

RMP and recommended the BLM reduce the complexity of

the BA.

The BLM has revised the BA and Chapters 3 and 4 of the

Proposed RMP and EIS to reflect that Canada lynx have been

found in the planning area, but have not been documented on

BLM-administered lands. The BLM will announce its final

decision on the Proposed RMP in the ROD; the decision is not

governed by timing associated with the BA. The BLM believes

the BA is appropriately written and not overly complex.

Special Status

Species

2030-3 Commenters raised both specific and general concerns regarding

the suitability of management determinations for special status

species, and suggested that the BLM provide additional support

and clarification for its management direction. Specifically,

commenters requested (1) detailed information on BLM

management direction and monitoring actions pertaining

to special status species protection and habitat, (2) more

consistency with USFS and USFWS management directives and

determinations, (3) the removal of restrictions for special status

species that the USFWS has withdrawn from consideration as

threatened or endangered, and (4) greater protections and safety

measures for listed species.

The BLM revised the Proposed RMP and Final EIS to reflect

recent USFWS decisions, and incorporated, in coordination

with the USFWS, USFS, and WGFD, commenter requests for

specific revisions and clarifications, technical edits, changes

to management actions, and updates to data and mapping, as

appropriate. The USFWS and WGFD are the lead authorities

responsible for the protection, management, and monitoring

of all flora and fauna species in the planning area. Both the

USFWS and WGFD provided guidance to the BLM, which is

reflected in the special status species sections and management

actions in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS.

Trails and Travel

Management

2031-1 Commenters requested that the BLM change route designations

to increase restrictions on travel, close areas to motorized and

mechanized travel, and enact seasonal road closures to protect

wildlife, water quality, wilderness values, and back country

recreational experiences. One commenter expressed concern

that changes in route designations would have adverse impacts

to livestock grazing that are not disclosed in the document.

Commenters recommended the BLM complete a comprehensive

monitoring program and coordinate with stakeholders before

changing route designations to protect wildlife values.

Commenters also requested the BLM allow for the swift

installation of snow fences, address all the road and recreation

needs covered in the Fremont County Land Use Plan in

coordination with the Fremont County Commission, and allow

access to seasonally closed areas and alternative routes if route

designations change to limited or closed. A commenter also

suggested travel restrictions not apply to geophysical operators

to preserve BLM administrative flexibility.

Several commenter requests do not require an RMP decision,

are part of a separate process (e.g., Revised Statute 2477 rights

or review of Plan of Operations), or will be addressed in the

implementation phase in accordance with BLM guidance.

Suggestions about specific route management can be made at

implementation meetings where there will be opportunities for

public input. Authorizations or permits that include motorized

vehicle activities will address the use of motorized vehicles as

part of the authorization or permit. The BLM added language

to the tables of management actions in Chapter 2 to clarify the

route designation process in an RMP. In addition, the BLM

added Appendix W (p. 1813) to the Proposed RMP and Final

EIS that provides additional information on travel management

planning and decisions.

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1864 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Vegetation 2032-1 Commenters recommended multiple revisions to the Vegetation

sections based on current knowledge of forest management,

such as addressing discrepancies in buffer distances, replacing

certain vocabulary, and incorporating BMPs. For example,

commenters requested replacing the term “clear-cuts” because

it has a negative connotation, and incorporating the Wyoming

State Forestry Division’s Silvicultural BMPs guide.

The BLM updated management and applicable sections of

the Proposed RMP and Final EIS, as appropriate. The BLM

agrees with the characterization of clear-cut as a negative term;

however, scoping clearly identified that clear-cutting needs

to be addressed separately from other silviculture techniques.

The BLM incorporated the Wyoming State Forestry Division’s

Silvicultural BMPs in Appendix H (p. 1521).

Vegetation 2032-2 Commenters stated that the Draft RMP and EIS fails to

implement management requirements or limitations to address

the needs of vegetation communities when their health is

threatened by other resource uses. Commenters suggested

clarifying proposed vegetation treatments by adding a timeframe

for recovery, and suggested revising a management action to

include wildlife habitat objectives. Other commenters suggested

management strategies to increase available forage for livestock,

such as adding a management action that would allow for

the BLM to apportion additional forage for livestock grazing

when monitoring has shown that additional forage is available.

Commenters also requested clarification on management terms,

including “desirable vegetation communities.”

Management of all vegetation communities will be based

on meeting Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands

and the NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions, which provide

the reference state from which the standards are measured.

The BLM will work with permittees/lessees, cooperators,

and the interested public to meet Wyoming Standards for

Healthy Rangelands. If standards in these communities fail

due to livestock grazing, appropriate actions will be taken and

incorporated into the comprehensive grazing strategies defined

in Appendix K (p. 1547). Apportioning additional forage for

livestock grazing use is already provided for by regulation and

does not require changing management in the Proposed RMP

and Final EIS.

The BLM updated vegetation management in Chapter 2 to

incorporate wildlife objectives. Proposed vegetation treatments

will be identified in cooperation with the WGFD, and together

the agencies will identify the specific objectives, including

recovery timeframes, for the project. All potential projects will

be subject to NEPA analysis and WGFD review related to the

Density Disturbance Calculation Tool protocol.

Desired plant communities will be based on the NRCS

Ecological Site Descriptions and managed in a way designed

to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Desired plant communities allow for flexibility in management

for specific wildlife habitats rather than historic climax plant

communities.

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1865

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Vegetation 2032-3 Comments regarding vegetation species composition in

reclamation standards for DDAs and non-DDAs include revising

text with clarifying language. For example, commenters

requested clarification regarding seed mixes, determining

species composition, fulfilling species composition percentage

requirements, and seeding times and methods.

The BLM revised Appendix D (p. 1477) and applicable

sections to address these comments. The standards the BLM

uses for reclamation are based on the NRCS Ecological Site

Descriptions, including seed mixtures and determining species

composition by weight. Site-specific conditions or issues will

be addressed in the individual project reclamation plan.

Visual Resource

Management

2033-1 Commenters expressed concern that designating areas with

more stringent VRM classifications would adversely impact

development operations, including oil and gas development

on existing leases. One commenter questioned the need

for a large area designated as VRM Class III across the

Sweetwater watershed, noting that development in this area

was not expected to necessitate a corridor of this size. Another

commenter requested that the BLM consider designating the

Beaver Rim MLP as VRM Class II in an effort to stay consistent

with the surrounding area’s VRM.

Commenters also requested clarification on VRM, including

providing a clear explanation of how VRM Classes were

determined.

Commenters requested that the BLM revise VRM maps to more

accurately portray the level of development constraints and to

show that the BLM VRM restrictions do not apply to privately

owned or state-managed lands.

The BLM will not impose new VRM restrictions on existing

oil and gas leases. Therefore, the BLM will work with

operators to mitigate impacts to the best extent practical (see

Washington Office IM No. 98-164). Regarding VRM Class

III designation in the Sweetwater watershed, while the VRM

Class III designation applies to a larger area, the ROW corridor

is much narrower. In the Beaver Rim MLP, the VRM Class III

designation reflects other uses in the area, and the BLM did not

identify resources that require VRM Class II management.

The visual resource inventory process is described in Chapter

3 and VRM Classes were developed in collaboration with the

cooperating agencies. VRM Classes are not based just on

inventory, but also desired management for the area.

The BLM believes the identified maps accurately portray

development constraints in VRM Class II areas. The BLM

does not assert the right to apply VRM restrictions to state and

private lands; the maps are illustrative of management, not

management itself.

Water 2034-1 Commenters stated that the water resource analysis did not

include recent data or current scientific reports pertaining to the

characterization and classification of specific water resources

and their uses in the planning area. Commenters stated that the

analysis did not provide accurate data or baseline conditions for

water resources indicators that would allow for an evaluation of

potential impacts, including chemical, physical, and biological

characteristics. Commenters also questioned the validity of

statements and language used to support BLM management

decisions pertaining to water quality standards and water

levels in the planning area, and requested clarification on

implementation of proposed BLM water monitoring actions.

Finally, commenters stated that the analysis did not consider the

beneficial uses of water produced by development activities,

The BLM has updated the Proposed RMP and Final EIS

to address comments as appropriate. The agency updated

applicable sections to include a discussion of impacts from

nonpoint source pollution, clarify inventory and monitoring

requirements, clarify impacts on groundwater, include analysis

of sensitive drinking water resources, and included scientific

references to support the analysis. The BLM determined that

impacts of produced water are better analyzed on a site-specific

basis, where actual water quality and stream conditions are

known.

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1866 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

including, but not limited to, improvements in natural water

quality in planning area waterways, livestock/wildlife resources,

and the creation of riparian zones and wetlands. Commenters

also requested the BLM remove a statement asserting oil and

gas techniques impact groundwater.

Water 2034-2 Commenters asserted that the BLM stated goals and objectives

do not reflect those provided by the state, and requested

justification or clarification concerning several management

actions. Commenters also questioned the BLM’s authority to

regulate surface water quality, which they noted was under the

jurisdiction of Wyoming DEQ, and requested the BLM clearly

state the Wyoming DEQ has primacy regarding water issues.

Commenters noted several technical corrections and inaccurate

statements pertaining to management of produced water and

water quality standards, and suggested edits and/or items

for inclusion. Commenters also requested that the BLM

include additional protective management for water resources.

Specifically commenters requested NSO restrictions in areas

near drinking water resources and clarification on how water

management actions and BMPs will be implemented and

monitored.

The BLM has updated the Proposed RMP and Final EIS in

response to the comments. Changes were made to applicable

sections regarding the use of pesticides and herbicides in

water source areas, clarify that Wyoming DEQ regulates water

quality, and update monitoring for groundwater. The BLM

has determined that the RMP and EIS adequately addressed

protection for water resources, including limitations on

surface-disturbing activities near drinking water resources and

implementation of BMPs.

Wild and Scenic

Rivers

2035-1 Commenters requested that the BLM reconsider the

eligibility/suitability of several waterways for inclusion in

the National Wild and Scenic River System. Specifically,

commenters recommended including a specific segment of

Warm Springs Creek due to its Wild and Scenic River (WSR)

status for the portion on adjacent USFS land, and segments

of the Little Popo Agie and Sweetwater rivers due to their

outstanding remarkable values. A commenter also stated that

the RMP does not adequately describe other mechanisms in

place to protect certain qualities of WSR-eligible segments.

After additional review, the BLM determined Segment 1 of

Warm Springs Creek was suitable for inclusion in the National

Wild and Scenic River System and revised the Proposed RMP

and Final EIS to reflect this change. Extensive mechanisms

are in place to protect qualities of WSR-eligible segments,

including cultural resource management, and management

associated with Congressionally Designated Trails.

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1867

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

Wild and Scenic

Rivers

2035-2 Commenters requested that the BLM incorporate management

prescriptions into the RMP and EIS that would limit adverse

impacts to Outstandingly Remarkable Values for all eligible

and suitable river segments, including, but not limited to, the

following: manage certain segments as VRM Class I and II;

manage mineral and realty actions within 1⁄4 mile of a segment

with category 6 restrictions; let mineral leases within 1⁄4 mile

of segments expire; prohibit or mitigate water impoundments,

diversions, or hydroelectric power facilities in river segments;

close segments to motorized and mechanized vehicles; close

timber harvest within river corridors; and intensive management

of livestock grazing within river corridors. Commenters also

requested that the BLM clarify if the nine segments will be

managed to protect their Outstandingly Remarkable Values

(as under Alternative A) under Alternative D, independent of

recommendations to Congress.

The BLM updated the Proposed RMP and Final EIS to

incorporate some of the recommended prescriptions. Other

management prescriptions are effectively covered under the

Proposed RMP or will be addressed during implementation.

During the RMP process, the BLM decides if Outstandingly

Remarkable Values meet eligibility and suitability criteria for

potential congressional WSR designations. Waterways found

to meet the suitability criteria receive protective management

until such time Congress decides whether to designate the

waterway. Waterways deemed eligible but not suitable are

removed from further consideration for protection under the

WSR program. This does not preclude these waterways from

protections to support other programs, such as recreation,

cultural and visual resources, and wildlife. The difference

between the alternatives in relation to eligible waterways not

deemed suitable is included in the WSR section in Chapter 4.

Wild Horses 2036-1 Commenters stated that the Draft RMP and EIS does not

adequately assess the impacts of proposed management on wild

horses in the planning area, that the existing conditions of Herd

Areas (HAs) and Herd Management Areas (HMAs) are not

adequately described, and that the BLM did not complete their

analysis with current monitoring data or supporting scientific

research.

The BLM reviewed all parts of the document associated with

the wild horses analysis and determined the information, as

stated, is valid. Management associated with wild horses is

based on BLM Manual 4700, and the Proposed RMP and Final

EIS complies with measures described in the manual. The

BLM collects monitoring information in the planning area HAs

and HMAs, including horse herd inventory, observations, use

of riparian-wetland areas, livestock use, and precipitation, and

the BLM used the information in the analysis.

Wild Horses 2036-2 Commenters expressed concern about the adequacy of proposed

management practices for wild horses in the planning area.

Specifically, commenters questioned the effectiveness of

proposed management methods for addressing genetic viability

and health, gather activities, and actions for meeting established

population numbers. Commenters requested revisions and

additional details on how the BLM will implement BMPs for

the maintenance, monitoring, and management of extant wild

horse populations, offered suggestions for improved wild horse

viewing opportunities and reduced viewing opportunities, and

requested the option for converting portions of AUMs allotted

for livestock use to wild horses/herds.

Commenters provided recommendations on management of

wild horses that would both expand and alter management for

Management associated with wild horses is based on BLM

Manual 4700. The BLM made technical edits and revised

management actions in Chapter 2 for clarity, and added

Appendix V (p. 1805), which includes detailed information on

wild horse management practices, implementation of BMPs,

and recreation opportunities associated with wild horses.

The appropriate management levels in the planning area were

established in 1993 and 1994. The BLM believes that the

appropriate management levels are satisfactory for the current

HMAs within its jurisdiction; moreover, the appropriate

management levels were established in the Consent Decree,

which is still in effect and has been made available on the

project website.

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1868 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

wild horse herds and ranges, including increasing appropriate

management levels.

Wilderness

Characteristics

2037-1 Commenters expressed confusion regarding guidance on lands

with wilderness characteristics and stated the BLM did not

provide justification for managing areas as non-Wilderness

Study Area (WSA) lands with wilderness characteristics.

Regarding management of these areas, multiple commenters

recommended prohibiting or limiting motorized travel in

lands with wilderness characteristics, while other commenters

recommended managing them as ROW exclusion areas in an

effort to protect primitive values. Commenters also suggested

increasing the size of areas or removing areas with wilderness

characteristics under Alternative D. In addition, commenters

expressed a need for further inventories of resources in lands

with wilderness characteristics to determine how impacts should

be managed, with inventories completed using guidance found

in IM 2011-154.

The BLM will manage non-WSA lands with wilderness

characteristics as authorized by IM 2011-154. The BLM’s

inventory of lands with wilderness characteristics fully

complies with this IM, and provides adequate rationale for

the BLM’s proposed management of non-WSA lands with

wilderness characteristics.

The BLM will evaluate closing or limiting motorized travel

in specific areas during travel management implementation

planning. However, the BLM updated the Travel Management

section to include additional protections for the Greer Peak

and Lysite mountain regions.

Wilderness Study

Areas

2038-1 Commenters questioned if WSAs near populated areas or

containing roads should remain designated as WSAs, while

other commenters indicated WSAs should be expanded as

recommended in the 1994 citizens’ recommended wilderness

report. One commenter noted the BLM did not identify

or recommend any new areas for wilderness protection in

Wyoming.

Multiple commenters recommended closing or limiting

motorized and mechanized travel in WSAs. In addition,

commenters indicated a need for further inventories of

resources in WSAs to determine how impacts should be

managed, specifically in riparian zones. Other comments

included requests to withdraw WSAs from mineral entry and

imposing Category 5 restrictions in WSAs to protect wildlife.

One commenter recommended the BLM not manage WSAs

according to WSA management policy, in the event Congress

releases those lands for multiple use management.

The BLM does not have the authority to adjust or make

changes to existing WSAs.

The BLM manages WSAs under BLM Manual 6330,

Management of Wilderness Study Areas. The BLM concluded

that if motorized use is found to conflict with wilderness values,

that route will be closed or the impacts mitigated. Therefore,

no route will be found to be non-conforming to the wilderness

values. In addition, mechanized use is not prohibited by BLM

Manual 6330, and there have been no documented cases where

mechanized use is conflicting with wilderness values. If this

does occur, the BLM will use implementation planning to

address these conflicting uses.

Wildlife 2039-1 Commenters raised several concerns about the BLM’s

management of wildlife resources and identified information

gaps in the wildlife analysis. Specifically commenters raised

concerns regarding (1) the impacts of wildlife protections

and seasonal restrictions on other resources and energy

The BLM updated wildlife management in the alternatives and

other wildlife-related text in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS

in response to the comments. Specifically, the BLM updated

management actions in Chapter 2, clarified terminology,

clearly identified areas open and closed to leasing under each

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1869

Issue

Summary

Number

Summary Comment Summary Response

developments, (2) clarification on protective stipulations and

annual timing ofstipulations, and (3) whether BLM management

actions are supported by field verified and/or cited scientific

reference documents. In addition, commenters requested

additional detailed information regarding management in

special habitat designations, protection of big game species and

crucial winter ranges, grazing restrictions in wildlife areas, and

impacts on amphibian and raptor species. Commenters also

identified outdated data presented on wildlife maps.

alternative, added scientific references and citations to support

the analysis, and made other revisions, as appropriate. The

agency revised Chapters 3 and 4 to clarify wildlife habitat

ranges and designations, impacts, and protections.

The maps presented in the Draft RMP and EIS are

representative of data available at the time they were prepared.

The BLM will obtain updated survey information for raptor

nests once a federal action is authorized. The agency has

updated the maps in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS to reflect

recently updated data for big game winter range and greater

sage-grouse leks.

February 2013

Appendix

X Comment Analysis

Substantive Comment Summary and Response
1870 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

X.4.3. Non-Substantive Comments

In addition to the substantive comments summarized and responded to above, the BLM received

numerous non-substantive comments during the public comment period. In accordance with BLM

NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1), a formal response to non-substantive comments is not required;

however, the BLM has reviewed and acknowledges all comments it received. Non-substantive

comments generally included:

● Comments in favor of or against management alternatives and allocations without reasoning

that meet the criteria for substantive comments (e.g., we disagree with the Preferred

Alternative and believe the BLM should select Alternative C)

● Comments that only agreed or disagreed with BLM policy or resource decisions without

justification or supporting data that meet the criteria for substantive comments (e.g., the BLM

needs to better manage oil and gas development in the planning area)

● Comments that did not pertain to the Lander Field Office planning area

● Comments that were outside the scope of analysis for the RMP and EIS (such as comments

related to revision and update of laws, policies, and regulations)

● Comments that took the form of vague, open-ended questions or statements that did not

meet the criteria for substantive comments

X.5. Conclusion

The BLM revised the Draft RMP and EIS and prepared the Proposed RMP and Final EIS in

response to substantive public comments received during the public comment period. The BLM

will continue to consider public, agency, and other stakeholder comments through completion

of the Lander RMP revision, as appropriate.

Appendix X Comment Analysis

Non-Substantive Comments February 2013